THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF NICOLAOU v. CYPRUS
\n(Application no. 29068\/10)
\nJUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Art 2 \u2022 Effective investigation \u2022 Investigation into death of a conscript undermined by serious initial omissions and passage of time<\/p>\n
STRASBOURG
\n28 January 2020<\/p>\n
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the\u00a0Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Nicolaou v. Cyprus,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a\u00a0Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Paul Lemmens, President, Having deliberated in private on 7 January 2020,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application (no. 29068\/10) against the Republic of Cyprus lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by five Cypriot nationals, Ms AndrianaNicolaou (\u201cthe\u00a0first applicant\u201d), Mr CharalambosNicolaou (\u201cthe second applicant\u201d), Mr\u00a0NicosNicolaou (\u201cthe third applicant\u201d), Mr Andreas Nicolaou (\u201cthe\u00a0fourth applicant\u201d) and Ms Parthenope-Ariadne Nicolaou (\u201cthe\u00a0fifth\u00a0applicant\u201d), on 16 April 2010.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants were represented by Mr C. Candounas, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. The Cypriot Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Clerides, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus.<\/p>\n 3. The applicants complained that the investigation into the death of their relative Athanasios Nicolaou (\u201cMr Nicolaou\u201d or the \u201cdeceased\u201d) had been inadequate.<\/p>\n 4. On 10\u00a0June 2015 the applicants\u2019 complaint was communicated to the Government under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 5. On 6 November 2018 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided under Rule 54 \u00a7 2 (c) of the Rules of Court to request the parties to submit further written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 6. The applicants are the relatives of Mr Nicolaou who died on 29\u00a0September 2005. The first and second applicants are his mother and father. They were born in 1948 and 1943 respectively. The remaining applicants are the deceased\u2019s siblings. They were born in 1972, 1980 and 1982 respectively. All the applicants currently live in Limassol. The\u00a0deceased himself was also a Cypriot national born in 1979.<\/p>\n A. The background facts and Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The first and second applicant lived in Australia for numerous years. Their four children were born there. In 2003 the whole family moved back to Cyprus.<\/p>\n 8. In the summer of 2005 Mr Nicolaou, at the age of twenty-six, was drafted into the army to perform six months\u2019 mandatory military service. After receiving basic training at the Recruits Training Centre (\u039a\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u00a0\u0395\u03ba\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u039d\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) in Limassol, he was assigned to Camp Evmenios Panayiotou, in Polemidia, Limassol.<\/p>\n 9. On 28 September 2005 Mr Nicolaou was granted overnight leave and was due to return to the camp at 6.50 a.m. the next morning. He spent the night at home and on 29 September 2005 left around 6.30\u00a0a.m., after having had breakfast and taking his bag, which he himself had prepared, with clean clothes and food. He failed, however, to report back to his unit. Being unable to contact him, the camp called his mother at around 11.00 a.m. At\u00a03.45 p.m. his mother reported his disappearance to the police, who launched a search. At around 4\u00a0p.m. a police officer found his car parked on the side of the road, 150\u00a0m before the bridge in Alassa in the Limassol district, and at around 4.20\u00a0p.m. found his body under the bridge. An\u00a0ambulance arrived around 5.40 p.m. with a nurse. The first and third applicants arrived just afterwards, and the first applicant recognised the body and identified it as her son\u2019s. A\u00a0doctor from the Limassol General Hospital, who happened to be passing in the area, came and examined Mr\u00a0Nicolaou and established that he was dead.<\/p>\n 10. Members of the Lania Police Station (\u201cLPS\u201d) and of the Limassol Crime Combating Department (\u03a4\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\u0395\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd-\u201cthe\u00a0CCD\u201d), among others, visited the scene, which had been cordoned off. A\u00a0forensic pathologist, Dr P.S., was called to the scene and arrived at around 6.30 p.m. He examined the body in situ and established Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s death in the presence of his parents, police officers and a\u00a0second forensic pathologist. P.S. also conducted an inspection of the site. Samples and evidence were taken from the scene for testing. The scene was photographed by police officers and the deceased\u2019s car was searched. According to police records, P.S. had expressed the view on-site that the cause of death had been suicide due to a fall from a height, namely from the bridge, and that there had been no suspicion of a criminal act. During the subsequent investigation and the inquest proceedings P.S. denied that he had stated that the cause of death had been suicide (see paragraph 45 below).<\/p>\n 11. The body was then transferred to the Limassol General Hospital for further examination.<\/p>\n B. The post-mortem report by P.S.<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. In the morning of 30 September 2005 a post-mortem examination of the deceased\u2019s body was conducted by P.S. at the morgue of the Limassol General Hospital. He\u00a0released his post-mortem report on 16 June 2006.<\/p>\n 13. P.S. noted that the deceased had been found lying on his back twenty\u00a0metres directly under the bridge: his clothes were wet and his body was still warm. Cadaveric hypostases had just started to appear on the dorsal surface of the upper body and the limbs, which subsided with pressure. Rigor mortis had started to set in (\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03c8\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5). He estimated that the deceased had died within four hours before being found. Lying on the left side of the body was a pair of glasses. On the ground, underneath the deceased\u2019s back, there was a wristwatch, the strap of which was cut on one side. A wallet was found outside the right pocket of his tracksuit trousers. Vomit was found near his left arm.<\/p>\n 14. During the post-mortem examination, samples were taken of the deceased\u2019s cranial cavity, blood, urine and vitreous fluid as well as of the contents of his stomach for toxicological exams.<\/p>\n 15. According to the report of the State General Laboratory the deceased had 44 mg% [sic] alcohol in his blood and 31mg% [sic] in his vitreous fluid. His DNA was also matched to two beer cans found in the deceased\u2019s military bag and near the car.<\/p>\n 16. P.S. noted that there was no evidence to indicate violent injuries caused by a fight. The deceased had a fracture in the area of the right wrist, the right knee and right femur (thigh) as well as a small wound on the right side on the surface of the tongue.<\/p>\n 17. P.S. also observed the following:<\/p>\n \u2013 Head: there were no skull fractures, or injuries. There was a brain oedema as well as pervasive epidural and subarachnoid brain haemorrhage.<\/p>\n \u2013 Neck and thorax: the deceased had fractures of the intervertebral spaces of the cervical spine. A haemothorax (accumulation of blood) took up the entire right side of the thorax. He had rib fractures of the 9th, 10th, 11th onthe left and 10th on the right paravertebral fractures from the 1st to the 10th intercostal space. Further, a sternal fracture was observed. There was liquid, possibly water with sand, in the oral cavity. There were blood and food remains in the trachea. The left lung presented fractures, the right lung presented ruptures. Although the heart was normal, haemopericardium rupture was observed as well as rupture of the pericardial sac.<\/p>\n \u2013 Abdomen: haemoperitoneum was observed.The stomach contained a few watery half-digested cereals. There was a small rupture in the lower surface of the liver and the right adrenal gland presented a contusion. The\u00a0left adrenal gland was normal, as was the spleen. The right kidney presented a rupture and the left kidney was atrophic. P.S. observed mesenteric cuts, bruising of the intestinal strands of the sigmoid colon of the large intestine (\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\u03c4\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5), contusions of the right ilio\u2011psoas muscle (this is near the upper femur), a diffused retroperitoneal hematoma and contusion of the bladder.<\/p>\n 18. The report concluded that:<\/p>\n \u201cDeath was due to subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage, broken ribs and sternum, a rupture of the right lung with haematothorax, a ruptured right kidney, a rupture of the mesentery with haemoperitoneum, fatal injuries which can also occur from fall from a height. No signs of criminal activity were found.\u201d<\/p>\n C. The first police investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n 19. On 1 October 2005 a police investigation was formally opened. This\u00a0was carried out by the LPS.<\/p>\n 20. In the course of the investigation the police carried out a new inspection of the site for the purpose of finding Mr Nicolaou\u2019s mobile phone. This was not found. Mr Nicolaou\u2019s family also informed the police that during their own subsequent visits to the scene on 20 October 2005, they had collected a sample of soil which they suspected contained Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s blood and which they had found about 3 metres from the location where his body had been found. They gave the sample to the police and also showed them, on the scene, where they had found the red-tinged soil. Following tests, it was confirmed that it was the deceased\u2019s blood.<\/p>\n 21. On the basis of information from the State\u2019s Meteorological Department it was confirmed that on 29 September 2005 between 12.55\u00a0p.m. and 2.45 p.m. there had been a storm with heavy rainfall and also hail in the area.<\/p>\n 22. Between 1 October 2005 and 28 June 2006 the police obtained statements from over fifty witnesses. The witnesses included the deceased\u2019s family, his last employer, his priest, military personnel with whom he had served, his military superiors, passers-by and farmers from the area where his body had been found, and drivers who had crossed the bridge on the day of death. Those statements included, inter alia, the following.<\/p>\n 23. Fellow soldiers gave statements describing Mr Nicolaou as being, among other things, quiet, solitary and reserved. On the day of his death he was not seen entering or leaving the camp by any of the soldiers on guard.<\/p>\n 24. According to the statements given by the first applicant and Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s priest, E.E, during his military service Mr Nicolaou had often confided to them that the situation at the camp was \u201cunbearable\u201d, explaining that he had been verbally insulted, humiliated and bullied by his fellow soldiers on several occasions. Although on several occasions they had urged him to report the alleged incidents of bullying to his commanding officer, he had been afraid to do so in case his comrades turned against him. According to the first applicant, Mr Nicolaou wished to be transferred to another unit while he was also keen to secure an early discharge from the army. A couple of days before his death he had told his mother that certain soldiers had thrown papers at him and called him \u201can Australian\u201d and that he had reported this incident to his commanding officer. The first applicant alleged that the persons implicated in the event had ambushed him outside the camp on the day of his death.<\/p>\n 25. From the evidence given it transpired that Mr Nicolaou had been disciplined and hard-working but did not get on well with the soldiers in his squadron and had complained in general about this to his superiors, (Captain P.D. and M.C). His commanding officer, Lieutenant D.I. was also informed of this. Both P.D and M.C. stated that they had noted that two or three days before his death Mr Nicolaou had been very uneasy and nervous, and that something serious had been bothering him. Mr Nicolaou refused to confide in P.D., so P.D. sent him to D.I. D.I and two others (Colonel K.V., the Chief of Staff of III Brigade Support, and soldier I.D.) confirmed that on 25 September 2005 Mr Nicolaou was called \u201cthe English\u201d by his fellow\u2011soldier (I.D.). D.I. discussed the incident with the two and made recommendations daily to all soldiers not to call each other names, especially not the new recruits; and to be careful.<\/p>\n 26. In his report dated 28 June 2006, the police officer from LPS in charge of the investigation observed that the deceased\u2019s family\u2019s allegations that a crime had been committed and that certain soldiers had information about the case and had been involved in his death had been examined, but no evidence had been found to support this. From the evidence collected and the findings of the forensic pathologist, P.S., it transpired that the cause of death had been a fall from a height; the commission of a criminal act was excluded. The report did not address any issues that Mr Nicolaou had had at the camp with his fellow soldiers, apart from briefly mentioning what Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s priest had said in his statement. The report was transmitted to the District Court of Limassol for the inquest proceedings (see paragraph 30 below).<\/p>\n D. The military investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n 27. In parallel, a military investigation into the causes of the death and the circumstances under which the deceased had been discovered dead was also conducted by Major Y.I. who had been overseeing the camp\u2019s security. Y.I. had belonged to a different unit from Mr\u00a0Nicolaou. According to a\u00a0letter in the case file from the Ministry of Defence dated 18 August 2015, Y.I. did not know Mr Nicolaou and he was not his subordinate (\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u00a0\u03c5\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u00a0\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).<\/p>\n 28. Y.I. submitted a first report dated 18 April 2006. In this he provided a summary of the statements given to the police investigator by eleven witnesses, who were military personnel and soldiers at the camp, Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s last employer, his priest and the first applicant. Y.I.\u00a0concluded that on the basis of the facts ascertained during the investigation, Mr Nicolaou had committed suicide during his overnight leave and proposed that, in the absence of a criminal offence, the investigation be closed.<\/p>\n 29. Following instructions by the National Guard General Staff of the Ministry of Defence for further investigation, Y.I. prepared a second report, dated 4 July 2006, in which he provided a summary of statements given by fifty-three witnesses, mainly the statements given to the police investigator during the police investigation and the supplementary statements he took between 5 May 2006 and 28 June 2006. He concluded that, taking into account nearly all the witness statements and the forensic report, Mr\u00a0Nicolaou had been distant, reserved, solitary and pious, had not had any major problems and had committed suicide during his overnight leave. Y.I.\u00a0proposed that, in the absence of a criminal offence, the investigation be closed.<\/p>\n E. The first inquest before the District Court of Limassol (inquest\u00a0no.\u00a0104\/05)<\/strong><\/p>\n 30. An inquest into the deceased\u2019s death took place and on 21 November 2007 the coroner found that there was no evidence to indicate any criminal liability on the part of a third party for the deceased\u2019s death. The cause of death was the injuries sustained from a fall from a height. Her finding was that the death had occurred under conditions resembling suicide.<\/p>\n 31. On 6 December 2007 the President of Limassol District Court affirmed this finding.<\/p>\n F. Forensic opinions by private experts<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The forensic opinion produced by Dr O.P.<\/em><\/p>\n 32. After the finding of the first inquest, the first applicant asked a\u00a0private forensic pathologist and sociologist practising in Greece, Dr O.P., for a second opinion as to the causes of her son\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 33. In his report dated 8\u00a0February 2008, O.P. criticised a number of aspects of the first post-mortem examination. He noted the following, inter\u00a0alia:<\/p>\n \u2013 no toxicological analysis of the stomach content had been conducted because the vial holding the content of the stomach had, for unspecified reasons, not been sealed.<\/p>\n \u2013 P.S. had failed to enquire into: the position of the body on site; the fact that the deceased\u2019s wristwatch had been found behind the body with the watch strap detached by a missing spring; and into the bruising on the deceased\u2019s wrists and thumb which, inter alia, were signs that his hands had been held behind his back<\/p>\n \u2013 the fact that the cereals Mr Nicolaouhad eaten (according to his mother at 6.30 a.m. the morning of his death) had only been half-digested, was incompatible scientifically when considering the time it takes for cadaveric hypostases to start to show and rigor mortis to set in.<\/p>\n \u2013 on the post-mortem photographs the right ankle joint was hidden by the left one and there had been blood on the table in the direction of the right foot.<\/p>\n 34. O.P. also explained that the fractures sustained by the body could have been caused by repeated fierce punches or blows with a blunt instrument. He considered that the possibility that the deceased had committed suicide was completely unfounded and that the injuries he had sustained had been inflicted intentionally. In his view, Mr Nicolaou had been tortured. He had then lost consciousness from the blows which he had received and had gone into a fatal coma. P.S.\u2019s conclusion that the fatal injuries sustained \u201ccan also result from a fall from a height\u201d (see\u00a0paragraph 18 above), left open the possibility that there might be other causes of death.<\/p>\n 35. O.P. concluded that the post-mortem examination had been flawed and had reached unjustifiable conclusions. The findings of the post-mortem examination could not be considered as specialised (\u03bc\u03b7\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac) given the absence of all the main macroscopic features (\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd).<\/p>\n 2. The forensic opinion produced by Dr P.K.<\/em><\/p>\n 36. At around the time the first applicant had sought the opinion of O.P. (see paragraph 32 above), she had also requested the forensic opinion of Dr\u00a0P.K., a forensic pathologist and the head of the Forensic Medical Service of Athens. In his report dated 11\u00a0February 2008 P.K. observed, inter alia, the absence of: DNA testing of the glasses, wallet and finger nails, laboratory testing of the stomach content and the vomit found next to the body, histological exams on the intestines and evaluation of the blood found under the bridge.<\/p>\n 37. P.K. concluded that various factors in the case were not compatible and detracted from the hypothesis of a fall from 30 metres; the complete absence of even any minor external injuries on the whole body or of any skeletal and intestinal injuries, characteristic of a fall from a height, the position of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s body, the presence of sand and possibly water in his oral cavity, the fact that he had bitten his tongue, the presence of sand on his face and other parts of his body, the fact that his clothes were wet, his spectacle lenses had not been broken and that the frame had not been deformed, as well as the position in which the wallet had been found. He\u00a0noted that P.S.\u2019s report did not rule out the possibility that Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s internal injuries had been caused by an event other than a\u00a0fall.<\/p>\n G. The family\u2019s legal challenge to the first inquest<\/strong><\/p>\n 38. Having obtained O.P.\u2019s and P.K.\u2019s opinions, the first applicant submitted a request to the Attorney General for the case to be re-opened; however, the request was denied on the grounds that the fresh forensic reports had produced no new evidence.<\/p>\n 39. The first applicant then applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari (application no. 51\/2008) on the grounds that the coroner had exceeded her powers as no evidence had been adduced at the inquest to prove that the death had been a result of suicide.<\/p>\n 40. On 31 December 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the coroner\u2019s verdict and ordered a second inquest before a different coroner. It observed, inter alia, that for a coroner to reach a finding of suicide there had to be evidence that the deceased had wanted to kill himself. The coroner had not stated which parts of the evidence ruled out the possibility that death was caused by something other than suicide, for instance, a criminal act or accident. This would have indicated, if not beyond reasonable doubt then at least to a high degree of certainty, that it had been a case of suicide. The\u00a0coroner had not held that it had been suicide, but that it looked like suicide which conclusion she was not empowered to reach. If, on the basis of the evidence, she had not been satisfied that it had been suicide, she could have reached an \u201copen verdict\u201d.<\/p>\n H. The second inquest<\/strong><\/p>\n 41. The second inquest was conducted before another coroner at the District Court of Limassol between 5\u00a0May\u00a02009 and 5\u00a0October 2009. Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s family relied on O.P.\u2019s report and his findings therein. They argued that the investigation conducted by the police and P.S. had been substandard and that the police, influenced by the view taken by P.S. quickly drew the conclusion that Mr Nicolaou had killed himself. In their application for DNA tests on certain of the evidence, the police had recorded \u201cUnnatural death \u2013Suicide\u201d. They further argued that the police had failed to collect DNA samples from the deceased\u2019s car and personal belongings and that they had delayed in testing the blood later found at the scene.<\/p>\n 1. The evidence at the second inquest<\/em><\/p>\n 42. Five witnesses testified at the second inquest: two members of the LPS, a chemist from the State General Laboratory and P.S. were summoned by the police and cross-examined by the applicants\u2019 lawyer. O.P. was also summoned by the applicants.<\/p>\n 43. A member of the LPS testified that no evidence had been found showing the movements of the deceased prior to his death. The police investigation had been oriented towards an ordinary case of unnatural death, because P.S. had ruled out the possibility of criminal activity while on the scene. For this reason, no DNA tests had been obtained from the deceased\u2019s car.<\/p>\n 44. The chemist from the State General Laboratory explained, inter alia, the content of the stomach had not been examined because under the laboratory\u2019s methods of alcohol and drug testing, priority was given to blood, urine and vitreous fluid samples. She confirmed that the vial containing samples of the gastric fluid had not been sealed by the police and that this was an irregularity. The chemist explained that testing the stomach content could have established the time of death and whether the body had been moved.<\/p>\n 45. P.S. testified that, taking into consideration the body\u2019s position and the other findings, there had been a strong possibility that the deceased had fallen from the bridge. With reference to the glasses and the watch, there was a strong possibility that the glasses had been separated from the body during the fall and it was possible that the watch had been cut from the strap when the hand bearing it hit the ground. The possibility of the body having been moved to the site from another area could be ruled out owing to cadaveric hypostases found on the surface of the deceased\u2019s back; had the body been moved, these hypostases would have been different. It was also unlikely that the deceased\u2019s blood could have remained in the area for days after the incident. He denied, however, stating on the scene that the cause of death had been suicide.<\/p>\n 46. With reference to the stomach content, he explained that he had requested toxicological examinations, but the laboratory had failed to carry them out. In any event, given the results from the other tests (blood, urine and vitreous fluid) they would not have added anything new. Similarly the injuries to the intestines could be explained without such a histological examination.<\/p>\n 47. P.S. also pointed out that most of the indications pointed to the conclusion that Mr Nicolaou had not been subjected to violence as there were no injuries or bruises on the soft tissues of the head<\/p>\n 48. O.P. supported the submissions of the family and was adamant that the injuries found on the deceased\u2019s body had not been the result of a fall from a bridge, but intentional and the result of pre-meditated crime. Had the body fallen from a height of thirty metres, the speed would have been so great that there would have been a variety of external injuries.<\/p>\n 2. The verdict at the second inquest<\/em><\/p>\n 49. In his verdict of 19 October 2009 the second coroner focused on the testimonies of the two forensic pathologists, P.S. and O.P.: the other evidence was not important enough to strengthen or weaken the position of either side. He concluded that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy him \u2013 to the degree required in such proceedings \u2013 that the death of the deceased had been the result of suicide or of a criminal act. The coroner gave his verdict in the following terms:<\/p>\n \u201cThe testimonies, the evidence and generally all the data provided can only lead the court to one safe conclusion and this is my finding, namely that the deceased\u2019s death is the result of injuries caused by falling from a height.\u201d<\/p>\n 50. On 25 November 2009 the Attorney General decided that, having received the verdict of the second coroner, he was satisfied that there were no grounds for bringing criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n I. Additional reports by private experts<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Criminological report produced by D.G.<\/em><\/p>\n 51. The applicants sought the opinion of the criminologist D.G, practising in Athens. In his report of 30 April 2009. D.G. questioned P.S.\u2019s findings and, inter alia, as O.P. and\/or P.K, the positioning of the body, of the wrist watch and the marks on the deceased\u2019s hands which arguably pointed to the involvement of third persons in his death. As did the abovementioned experts, he noted the failure to seal test the stomach contents and the fact that the police had not sealed the bottle, hence tainting the sample. In addition, D.G. considered that the liquid and the sand found in Mr Nicolaou\u2019s oral cavity should have been tested. He also noted that it was unheard of for no injury to have been caused to the soft tissue on the scalp following a fall from such a height and a supine collision.<\/p>\n 52. In conclusion, D.G. excluded the possibility of suicide and considered that it was possible that (an)other person(s) had been involved in Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. He also observed that there had been serious omissions in the investigation and collection of evidence in the case, both by the police as well as the forensic services.<\/p>\n 2. Medical report produced by M.G.<\/em><\/p>\n 53. The applicants also requested Mr M.G., a consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine at the University College of London Hospitals, to compile a forensic medical report providing an opinion as to whether Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s injuries had been compatible with a fall from the said bridge.<\/p>\n 54. In his report of 11 February 2010 M.G. noted that the deceased\u2019s internal injuries did not match the external appearance of the body. He concluded, inter alia, as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn conclusion this tragic case is medico-legally bizarre in, that the \u2018figures do not add up well\u2019. There are significant internal injuries to show that the body was subjected to a ferocious insult but little evidence of sufficient external trauma as one would have definitely expected to see in a case of a fall from significant height, to justify the distribution and severity of the internal injuries. I strongly believe that other mechanisms of trauma would have been far more likely than a fall from such a\u00a0height in causing Mr Athanasios Nicolaou\u2019s death. …\u201d<\/p>\n J. The investigation by the criminal investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers<\/strong><\/p>\n 55. Following persistent efforts by the first applicant who sent letters to various officials requesting a fresh investigation into the cause of death of her son, on 29 March 2011 the Council of Ministers, under Section 4(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Cap. 155), appointed two criminal investigators, a lawyer and a former senior police officer, to investigate the circumstances of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death (Council of Ministers\u2019 decision no.\u00a071.922). The Ministry of Defence, which had submitted the relevant proposal, agreed to conduct the investigation, having considered all the circumstances of the case, the first applicant\u2019s allegations concerning her son\u2019s cause of death and the Attorney General\u2019s observation to the Ministry of Defence that the conduct of the army officers during the period in which Mr Nicolaou had served his military service and particularly at the time preceding his death, was a matter that had not been investigated at the time.<\/p>\n 56. The investigation commenced on 9 May 2011.<\/p>\n 57. The investigators\u2019 request to the Council of Ministers for the appointment of an independent forensic pathologist was approved (Council\u00a0of Ministers\u2019 decision no. 73.036), and following a competition Dr\u00a0M.M. (\u201cM.M.\u201d) was appointed by the Ministry of Defence.<\/p>\n 1. The forensic opinion produced by M.M.<\/em><\/p>\n 58. In his report of 27 April 2012 M.M. forcefully questioned P.S.\u2019s conclusions and criticised the manner in which the police investigation had been carried out. During the investigation he visited the site where the body was found with one of the investigators, and once again with the deceased\u2019s parents.<\/p>\n 59. M.M. expressed the view that the forensic inspection at the scene as well as the post-mortem examination and the police investigation had not been of the requisite standard and suffered from numerous shortcomings. He detailed his findings in this respect.<\/p>\n 60. With regard to the inspection and the post-mortem examination, he observed, inter alia, as follows:<\/p>\n \u2013 the time of death was estimated by measuring the deceased\u2019s temperature by touching the body, rather than by the use of a thermometer, leading to a misleading and unreliable estimation;<\/p>\n \u2013 it had been clear from a photograph taken at the scene on the day the body was found, that there had not been any cadaveric hypostases on the dorsal surface of deceased\u2019s body, unlike on the photograph taken the next day at the morgue after the body had remained in a supine position overnight. Consequently, the cadaveric hypostases, were at the time either not present or so slight that they did not show up on the photograph. They could not therefore be used to support the finding that the body had not been moved or transferred to the site where it was found;<\/p>\n \u2013 the bridge was in fact thirty, not twenty metres high, and the parapet of the bridge had not been measured by P.S.;<\/p>\n \u2013 the fact that the body was found directly under the bridge did not support the view of a voluntary fall but rather the view that Mr Nicolaou had been thrown off the bridge in an unconscious state or already dead or that his body had been placed under the bridge by (a) third person(s) or after an accidental fall. If Mr Nicolaouhad jumped off the bridge, his body would have followed a curved trajectory and would have struck the ground some metres away from the vertical side of the bridge.<\/p>\n \u2013 P.S. had failed to spot and evaluate a significant quantity of blood which had been found three metres from the body (see paragraph 20 above). The\u00a0presence of this blood increased the odds that the body had been moved to that position by a third person or third persons. During the inquest P.S. had been unable to satisfactorily to explain how the blood had been found at that distance from Mr Nicolaou\u2019s body and why Mr Nicolaou had no open wound that could have bled;<\/p>\n \u2013 no photographs had been taken of the alleged fractures to the right wrist, the right knee and right femur which had been noted in P.S.\u2019s report;<\/p>\n \u2013 no tests had been carried out on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s sock, which appeared to have blood on it.<\/p>\n 61. Referring to O.P and P.K\u2019s reports, he stated that he was inclined to agree with the serious questions they had raised of the validity of the on-site inspection and of the post-mortem examination by P.S. and his findings. Like O.P. and\/or P.K he observed, among other things, the lack of explanation as to Mr Nicolaou\u2019s glasses remaining intact after the fall, the absence of tests on: the fluid and sand in the oral cavity, the stomach fluids and the vomit found next to the body, the finger nails. He also observed the lack of explanation concerning the absence of skeletal and external injuries in light of the fall from a height of thirty metres, and the failure to explain the contusions\/bruising on Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s left hand which in his view resembled finger marks. He also noted as O.P., from the photographs, the existence of blood on the mortuary table coming from the deceased\u2019s right foot; there was however no mention in P.S.\u2019s report about an injury to that foot and no photograph had been taken.<\/p>\n 62. With regard to the police investigation, M.M. noted that after the on\u2011site inspection and, in particular, the post-mortem examination, the police had treated the case as suicide and the CID had not investigated further, but had left the handling of the case to the local police. The police investigator which had been in charge of the case did not have the required forensic experience to investigate such a case. In his view there had been major oversights in the investigation such as the failure to investigate the disappearance of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s credit card, military overnight leave card and mobile. The police had also failed to cross reference statements given by passers-by with the forensic report as regards the time of the events on the bridge which were crucial in assessing of the time of death.<\/p>\n 63. M.M. concluded that the absence of multiple, serious and characteristic skeletal injuries, rendered the findings of the two inquests to the effect that Mr Nicolaou had died after falling from the thirty-metre-high bridge unreliable and unacceptable (\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae). It was sad but also unjustifiable that the death of Mr Nicolaou had not been subject to the requisite thorough investigation, both in forensic terms and as regards the police involvement, and it was unfortunate that both inquests had failed to identify this fact. M.M.\u2019s professional opinion was that it did not follow from the investigation carried out into Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death that he had died following a fall from a bridge. The only finding that could be reached at an inquest was that the cause of death remained indeterminable and that the possibility of a criminal act had not been ruled out. An exhaustive police investigation was therefore needed, even at this late stage.<\/p>\n 2. The steps taken by the investigators and their findings<\/em><\/p>\n 64. In the course of the investigation, the investigators took statements from sixty-five persons and a number of steps to collect further evidence in the case. In particular, they managed to track down most of the soldiers who had served with Mr Nicolaou; they requested data from the Limassol Water Development Department (WDD), according to which on the day Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s body had been found the river had not been flowing; and, in view of the inconsistent references in the police investigation and forensic reports concerning the height of the bridge, they proceeded to measure the bridge themselves, finding that it was actually twenty metres high.<\/p>\n 65. The investigators sent Mr Nicolaou\u2019s right sock as an item of clothing which he had been wearing on the day of his death for testing to the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics (CING), with reservations as to the manner in which they had been stored; Mr Nicolaou\u2019s parents had kept them for all those years. According to the report from CING dated 8\u00a0November 2012, the blood on the sock as well as blood on his tracksuit trousers and T-shirt had been that of the deceased. The DNA of three unknown men was found on the external part of one of his socks, on his tracksuit trousers and on the inside of his underwear. The director of the forensic genetics laboratory of CING, in his statement to the criminal investigators, observed that the passage of time had negatively affected the quality of the genetic material and therefore the results of the DNA tests. Similarly, the manner in which objects were stored and handled, if not correct, would also negatively affect the tests.<\/p>\n (a) Findings concerning the first police investigation<\/p>\n 66. On 21 December 2012 the investigators submitted a lengthy report on the investigation procedure and their findings as well as the investigation file submitted to the Council of Ministers.<\/p>\n 67. In their report they pointed to a number of deficiencies on the part of the police in the investigation of the case from the very outset. According to the police officers\u2019 statements, P.S. had expressed the view at the scene that on the face of it there was nothing to suggest a criminal act and that the cause of death had been suicide. This appeared to have oriented the police investigation towards an ordinary case of unnatural death, and thus the investigation was conducted by an ordinary LPS officer rather than by experienced CCD investigators. The investigators observed that from that moment on the police had committed significant oversights in the investigation; P.S. had also been responsible for some of these shortcomings. In particular, they noted the following:<\/p>\n \u2013 instructions had not been given to immediately cordon off the area where the body was found. This, as mentioned by the police\u2019s fingerprint expert in his statement to the investigators, had led to a contamination of the scene;<\/p>\n \u2013 no DNA samples had been taken from the inside or the outside of the deceased\u2019s car. From the outside, samples should have been taken at least from the door handles as they may have not been wet from the rain;<\/p>\n \u2013 it appeared that no thorough examination had been conducted of the scene where the body had been found, bearing in mind that the deceased\u2019s blood had subsequently been found three metres away from his body. The police\u2019s Criminalistic Service Department (\u03a5\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u0395\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u0395\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd; \u03a5\u03a0\u0395\u0393\u0395) should have been called to examine the scene;<\/p>\n \u2013 MrNicolaou\u2019s gastric fluid had not been tested. The vial with the gastric fluid had not been sealed, leading to the contamination of this evidence;<\/p>\n \u2013 no samples had been taken for testing (i) the vomit found next to the deceased\u2019s body to ascertain what the deceased had eaten which would have helped determine the time of his death; and (ii) the sand and water found in his mouth in order to determine whether they came from the area or not;<\/p>\n \u2013 no DNA samples had been taken from his glasses, wrist watch, wallet or clothes;<\/p>\n \u2013 no statement had been taken by the police from the WDD to find out whether the river had been flowing the day on which the deceased had been found;<\/p>\n \u2013 statements had not been taken from all of the soldiers serving in Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s squadron. The investigators had made great efforts to trace them and take statements, but seven years on they had not been able to find all of them.<\/p>\n \u2013 no effort had been made to find out where Mr Nicolaou had obtained the beers;<\/p>\n \u2013 no request had been made for an official and full recovery of Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s mobile telephone data, and no such recovery took place. The\u00a0investigation in this regard had been confined to an unofficial record (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7) of incoming and outgoing calls without the names of the persons associated with the numbers. As these records were only retained for six months by the Cyprus Telecommunication Authority it was no longer possible for the investigators to trace the calls.<\/p>\n 68. The investigators noted that the omissions and shortcomings in the police investigation had rendered their investigation extremely difficult. The\u00a0principal errors in the case had been made by the police, and these had resulted in a deficient investigation and the unquestioning adoption of P.S.\u2019s position. Had these errors not been made the outcome of the case might have been different.<\/p>\n 69. The investigators stated that they would have expected experienced police officers to be puzzled by the intact state of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s body, which, according to P.S., had fallen from such a high bridge. This fact should have set them thinking.<\/p>\n 70. Lastly, they referred to M.M\u2019s comments on the police investigation and agreed with his standpoint (see paragraph 60 above).<\/p>\n (b) Conclusions<\/p>\n 71. The investigators expressed regret for the delay in their investigation and stated that this was due to difficulties they had faced and the procedures that had to be followed in order to appoint an independent forensic pathologist.<\/p>\n 72. In their report they relied mainly on the opinion given by M.M., who had been appointed as an independent forensic pathologist, because they found that his report had been complete, reasoned and rational. They too excluded the possibility that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s cause of death had been the fall from a height, and specifically from the bridge. This was primarily because of the absence of skeletal injuries, that is, external injuries on his body. However, in reaching this conclusion they also attached importance to the fact that his wrist watch had been found under his body, his glasses had been intact and there was sand and water in his oral cavity (whereas he had been found in a supine position), in conjunction with the fact that the river had not been flowing on the day of his death, indicating that the \u201cpresence\u00a0of the sand\u201d had stemmed from another area at another time.<\/p>\n 73. In so far as it could be argued that the absence of external injuries had been due to the consistency of the soil near the riverbed, this was contradicted by the views of O.P, P.K. and M.M., but also by the on-site inspection which the investigators had carried out. The investigators adopted O.P.\u2019s position, which had also been taken by M.M., that because the soil was a mixture of sand and stones, there should have been external injuries. Further, they considered that if the soil had been soft there would have been a pothole (\u201c\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u201d) where Mr Nicolaou had fallen.<\/p>\n 74. In their view, P.S.\u2019s stance and his statements during the inquest proceedings had been unsatisfactory and\/or unconvincing. and Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s body temperature could only have decreased with the passage of time.<\/p>\n 75. The investigators stated that they believed that Mr Nicolaouhad not been enjoying his army service. At the same time, they did not consider that the circumstances had been as unbearable or nightmarish as his mother described them. There certainly had been buffoonery, immature teasing, joking and annoying behaviour during resting times, and instances of disorderly behaviour and anarchy which had been brought about by the lax atmosphere that prevailed in his squadron. This atmosphere had been, in general, incompatible with his polite, rule-abiding and serious personality. There had been no systematic ill-treatment, physical or psychological. Nor\u00a0was there evidence that I.D. or any of the soldiers had ill-treated Mr\u00a0Nicolaou at any time or, apart from the one incident between I.D. and Mr Nicolaou, had had an argument with him.<\/p>\n 76. It was a fact that in his last two or three days Mr Nicolaou had been troubled and nervous, but he had not spoken about this to anyone, even in general terms, as he had done in the past about issues that bothered him. The\u00a0investigators considered that they could not find any responsibility on the part of his superiors who had tried to help him adapt and had intervened following the incident with I.D. They found that the first applicant\u2019s allegations and accusations in this respect were unfounded and contradictory. They also found that there had been contradictions in the first applicant\u2019s statements and claims as to the alleged murder of her son by soldiers from his squadron.<\/p>\n 77. They concluded as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c… this case was the subject of a thorough and deep investigation with the aim of finding out the real cause of the death of the soldier, Athanasios Nicolaou. It is a fact that we have been unable to find evidence indicating the exact cause of death, that is to say whether it was the result of a criminal act, an accident or suicide. There is, however, sufficient evidence, mostly scientific, provided by five experts, and evidence which we characterise as circumstantial, which overturns the verdict of the second inquest and the opinion of Dr P. S., as recorded during the inquest proceedings, that Athanasios Nicolaou\u2019s death was the result of injuries caused by falling from a height. At the same time, it is our personal view that quite possibly the death was the result of a criminal act, although we cannot be certain about that. We do not have any cogent evidence as to the motive or suspect(s) in this case. We\u00a0propose, however, that the case be re-examined by the police on the basis of new evidence (\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd) and [we suggest] an investigation along the lines that Athanasios Nicolaou\u2019s death could possibly be the result of a criminal act.\u201d<\/p>\n (c) Further steps and the investigators\u2019 supplementary report<\/p>\n 78. On 24 February 2014, following a decision by the Council of Ministers (Council of Ministers\u2019 decision no. 75.110), the criminal investigators submitted a supplementary report. In this they adopted their conclusions in their previous report. It\u00a0does not appear that they took any further steps. They noted that the case file had been given to them six years after the event and despite a thorough investigation they had been unable to find evidence shedding light on the real cause of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. They\u00a0repeated that they adopted in particular the findings of M.M. and P.K., and reiterated their suggestion that the case be re-examined by the police, as they considered that a police questioning of witnesses might produce more information, some of the witnesses having been reluctant to talk to them.<\/p>\n (d) The Attorney General\u2019s decision following the supplementary report<\/p>\n 79. On 8 April 2014 the Attorney General decided that given the passage of nine years, the police, just like the investigators, would not be able to secure evidence indicating the real cause of death. Accordingly, a\u00a0fresh investigation by the police was not warranted.<\/p>\n 80. On 23 April 2014 the Council of Ministers decided to give a copy of the whole investigation file, including the investigators\u2019 report, to the deceased\u2019s parents and to provide them financial support for the purposes of further investigating the causes of their son\u2019s death, should they request such support (Council of Ministers\u2019 decision of 23 April 2014, no. 76.781).<\/p>\n K. The second police investigation<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Further steps ordered by the Attorney General<\/em><\/p>\n 81. On 3 November 2014 the Attorney General reviewed the decision referred to in paragraph 79 above and instructed the Chief of Police to investigate the case further in order to ascertain the real causes of death of Mr Nicolaou. Having regard to the long lapse of time, the admittedly significant omissions on the part of the police during the initial investigation which could no longer be offset, and the failure of the criminal investigators to reach a conclusion, the Attorney General questioned whether a further investigation by the police could achieve any substantive outcome. Nevertheless, observing, that the right to life entailed an obligation on the part of the Republic to take all necessary steps to establish the real causes of death of every person, he considered that the State should pursue all possible and available means for the purposes of establishing the cause of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 2. The second police investigation<\/em><\/p>\n (a) The fresh investigative steps taken by the police<\/p>\n 82. On 19\u00a0February 2015, in accordance with the Attorney General\u2019s instructions, a police lieutenant from the Limassol CCD was appointed to reinvestigate the case. However, following vigorous complaints from the first applicant questioning the independence and objectivity of the Limassol police officers, Constable D.S (\u201cD.S.) from the CCD at the Nicosia HQ took over the investigation.<\/p>\n 83. D.S took statements and\/or supplementary statements from, inter\u00a0alia, the first and fourth applicants, soldiers from Mr Nicolaou\u2019s squadron and military personnel. She also spoke to M.M. who clarified certain points in his report and answered questions put to him.<\/p>\n 84. DNA samples were taken from two soldiers, including I.D., and were tested by the CING. The relevant report of 23 July 2015 stated that their DNA did not match that of the three unknown men that had been found on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s clothes (see paragraph 65 above). In this connection, she noted that in September 2012 it was Mr Nicolaou\u2019s parents who had taken his clothes and underwear to CING for DNA testing (see\u00a0paragraph 65 above) in spite all the risks this involved bearing in mind how and where the clothes had been stored and the fact that they had been tainted by numerous other persons who had handled or touched the body after it had been found.<\/p>\n 85. Although the possibility of testing Mr. Nicolaou\u2019s clothes was also considered, this was not done as the first applicant had insisted on taking the\u00a0clothes to the laboratory herself, which was not permissible since the case was under police investigation.<\/p>\n 86. On 8 November 2016, following a meeting at the Attorney General\u2019s office, a forensic pathologist was appointed, Dr S.S. He\u00a0was invited to deal with thirty-three specific questions that had arisen following the examination of the post-mortem report and the various opinions given in the case.<\/p>\n (b) The opinion produced by S.S.<\/p>\n 87. In his report of 10 March 2017 S.S. dealt with the questions put to him and set out his conclusions. He observed, inter alia, the following:<\/p>\n \u2013 there had been cadaveric hypostases on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s body at the time of the post-mortem examination, contrary to what some of the forensic opinions had stated; he agreed with P.S\u2019s findings on the matter;<\/p>\n \u2013 although it would have been better if the police had measured the height of the bridge during the inspection of the scene, the difference in the bridge measurement did not make a significant difference as in any event the fall had been from a significant height and the injuries caused, in his view, would have been more or less the same;<\/p>\n \u2013 there were no injuries which indicated that violence had been used, or bodily harm, for example from strangulation or shooting, as a possible cause of death;<\/p>\n \u2013 if Mr Nicolaou had been wearing his glasses at the time, they could have remained on his face until he hit the ground and then fallen off, which would explain why they had not been broken. If the wrist watch had been in his right pocket at the time, this could explain where it had been found;<\/p>\n \u2013 on the basis of P.S.\u2019s reports and the photographs on file, he considered that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s face had not touched the ground. He had hit the ground with the right side of his body, which was why his injuries had been on that side;<\/p>\n \u2013 there had been no point in examining Mr Nicolaou\u2019s fingernails as there had been no indication on his body of injuries caused by a fight or him resisting;<\/p>\n \u2013 S.S. disagreed with M.M.\u2019s view that the contusions and bruising present on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s left hand resembled finger marks: they were multiple small contusions of different diameters which might have been caused when his hand hit the ground; whence the fracture;<\/p>\n \u2013 testing the vomit found would not have added anything of substance, given that body fluids had been sent for testing to locate any possible substances and there had been a thorough inspection of the site and the existing conditions. Nor did he consider that testing the stomach content would have shed more light on the time of death. In order to determine the time of death a number of other factors had to be taken into account such as the existence of cadaveric hypostases, rigor mortis, body temperature and the temperature of the environment. But even these factors were not decisive;<\/p>\n \u2013 there could have been a brain oedema, pervasive epidural and subarachnoid brain haemorrhage without an external injury on the head. The\u00a0existence of oedema had been due to the fact that death had not been immediate. Pervasive epidural and subarachnoid brain haemorrhage could be caused by a sudden displacement of the head, more specifically the skull, or by a sudden violent movement of the head;<\/p>\n \u2013 in view of the brain oedema and the fact that there had been remains of food in the trachea, he considered that Mr Nicolaou had not died instantly. He\u00a0agreed with P.S. on this matter. It was not possible, however, to determine whether Mr Nicolaou had made any movements at all before dying. He could not therefore exclude that Mr Nicolaou had been alive for a\u00a0certain amount of time before his death;<\/p>\n \u2013 he considered that if there had been wounds on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s lower limbs, these would have been noted by P.S., as the latter had done with all other injuries. It was not possible to say whether the blood on the mortuary table was that of Mr Nicolaou or if it had remained there after a\u00a0post\u2011mortem conducted on another person;<\/p>\n \u2013 S.S. disagreed with P.K\u2019s and M.G\u2019s positions: in his view there were no specific positions a body would take up after falling from a height, and that the characteristics of a fall depended on a number of factors, such as height, the manner of the fall, the ground, the person\u2019s characteristics (weight, height, etc.) and the weather conditions;<\/p>\n \u2013 he observed that P.K. had not taken into account the skeletal injuries referred to in P.S.\u2019s report;<\/p>\n \u2013 if Mr Nicolaou had received blows as described by O.P. he would have had external bruising on his body or internal haemorrhagic infiltration (\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac);<\/p>\n 88. In conclusion, S.S. stated that after examining all the evidence before him he considered that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death had been caused from multiple injuries such as would be caused by a fall from a height. He also referred to and submitted photographs of another incident that had occurred on 21 December 2012, when another person had died after falling from a\u00a0height on a hard surface but had had no external injuries other than minor abrasions.<\/p>\n (c) The investigator\u2019s findings<\/p>\n 89. In her report of 25 June 2018 D.S. made, inter alia, the following observations and findings.<\/p>\n 90. She observed that it was clear from all the evidence given that Mr\u00a0Nicolaou had been introverted, reserved and retiring. During his service he had been taciturn and did not really have any relations with the other soldiers. He was very religious. It was certain from the evidence given by soldiers serving in his squadron, that Mr Nicolaou had been the victim of hazing (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c8\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd), teasing (\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) and mockery (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03b4\u03af\u03b1) by other soldiers due to his age, character, and the facts that he would be serving a\u00a0reduced military service and that he often took leave. There was also evidence that he had complained to his superiors that he had not been able to adapt to army life and had asked to be transferred to another unit, but this had not happened. By virtue of army order 7-1 of 2012 (subparagraph 6(a) point 5), which applied to army units and concerned the function of the National Guard\u2019s healthcare services, it was one of the duties and obligations of the Commander, in cooperation with the doctor, to identify problematic soldiers and to take all necessary measures to help them adjust to army life. It appeared that in the case of Mr Nicolaouthe requisite measures had not been taken. His commanding officer knew of the problems and the Chief of Staff had confined himself to reassuring him and telling him to be patient until he was released from service and to come and see him when he had a problem or felt under pressure. Steps should also have been taken for his transfer. Although no criminal liability could be attributed to these persons, it was possible that disciplinary offences had been committed and should have been investigated by the army authorities.<\/p>\n 91. She stated that it was beyond doubt that during the period just before his death Mr Nicolaou had been troubled by the fact that he could not adjust to life at the camp, but was also concerned about whether his period of service would be reduced. It was also possible that he had been troubled by something else but had not spoken to anyone about it.<\/p>\n 92. With regard to the opinions submitted by P.K, D.G and M.G, criticising P.S.\u2019s report and findings in particular, she noted that none of these experts had referred to the possible cause of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. Although M.G. considered that other mechanisms of trauma would have been far more likely to have caused Mr Nicolaou\u2019sdeath than a fall, he did not explain what these were (see paragraph 54 above). She pointed to S.S.\u2019s observation that if Mr Nicolaou had received blows as described by O. P. he would have had external bruising on his body or internal haemorrhagic infiltration (see paragraph 87 above).<\/p>\n 93. In addition, D.S. observed that it was an undisputed fact that prior to his death Mr Nicolaou had consumed alcohol despite his family\u2019s claims that he never drank alcohol. Only his DNA had been found on the beer cans which indicated that he had drunk the beers alone.<\/p>\n 94. She considered that the position where the body was found under the bridge indicated that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s fall had not been due to a malicious act by a third person or persons. In view of the presence of cadaveric hypostases on his body, the possibility that he had been killed in another place and then transferred was overruled.<\/p>\n 95. D.S. concluded that on the basis of all the evidence before her it had not been possible to ascertain whether Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death had been due to a deliberate fall or an accident. Although the possibility of a criminal act could not have been ruled out, she emphasised that no evidence had been secured, despite all the efforts made since his death, to support such a\u00a0criminal act or the responsibility of a third person in relation to his death. The absence of such evidence did not imply a cover-up, or unwillingness, inefficiency and\/or indifference on the part of the police authorities or the State in general, as occasionally mentioned by the first applicant. From all the evidence before her, and in accordance with the opinion of S.S., she concluded that Mr Nicolaou had died of multiple injuries caused by a fall. The circumstances in which he had fallen from the bridge could not be determined, and this, in her view, should have been stated in the first inquest. The fact that the assumption had been that Mr Nicolaou had committed suicide had given Mr Nicolaou\u2019s family grounds to contest the inquest.<\/p>\n (d) The Attorney General\u2019s decision<\/p>\n 96. In September 2018, after examining the file, the Attorney General decided that even though all the leads and possible sources of information that were available for ascertaining the circumstances of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death had been exhaustively pursued, it had proved impossible to secure evidence indicating that his death had been the result of a criminal act.<\/p>\n 97. On 15 November 2018 the Attorney General forwarded D.S.\u2019s report to the Chief of the National Guard and to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence. He informed them that D.S. had concluded that Mr\u00a0Nicolaou had been the victim of hazing, teasing and mockery by his fellow soldiers and that his superiors had known about this. Although there was no evidence of any criminal acts, he urged them to establish a\u00a0system of effective monitoring and identification of such practices within the army for the purposes of eliminating them and, if necessary, intervening and punishing those responsible.<\/p>\n L. Further developments: civil proceedings brought by the applicants against the Republic<\/strong><\/p>\n 98. On 2 September 2016 the applicants brought a civil action against the Republic before the Nicosia District Court (no. 4142\/16) for, inter alia, a\u00a0declaratory judgment that the competent State authorities had failed to protect Mr Nicolaou\u2019s life and to effectively investigate his death and claiming general, special and punitive damages. These proceedings are still pending. An application by summons by the applicants during these proceedings for an order to compel the Attorney General and the police to expedite and complete the fresh investigation (see paragraph 81 above) was dismissed by the court on procedural grounds.<\/p>\n II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE: THE DOMESTIC INQUEST SYSTEM<\/p>\n 99. The holding of inquests in Cyprus is governed principally by the Coroners Law 1959 (Cap. 153) as amended by Amending Laws 171(I)\/2011 and 13(I)\/2017. An inquest has an investigative character and there are no parties involved in the procedure (re: certiorari application by Andreas\u00a0Epiphaniou concerning the verdict in inquest 33\/2004 – judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 October 2010 in civil appeal 237\/2009, (2010)1\u00a0C.L.R. 1682). Every interested party may either appear in personor be represented by counsel in the proceedings and may examine, cross\u2011examine or re-examine, as the case may be, any witness (section 14; see also Andreas Epiphaniou, cited above).<\/p>\n 100. It is no part of a coroner\u2019s task to assess criminal or civil liability. A coroner has no authority to assign charges and commit a person for trial, as under Article 113 of the Constitution of Cyprus, powers of prosecution are vested solely in the Attorney General (Republic v. Pandelides (Coroner), ex parte Costas Papadopoulos (1969) 1 C.L.R. 27).<\/p>\n 101. Section 25 of the 1959 Law provides that, following the viewing, if any, of the body and the hearing of evidence, the coroner shall give his or her verdict and certify it in writing, showing, in so far as such particulars have been proved to him, who the deceased was, and how, when and where he came by his death.Under section 26, if at the close of the inquest the coroner is of the opinion that there are grounds for suspecting that some person is guilty of an offence in respect of the matter inquired into, but cannot ascertain who such person is, he shall certify his opinion to that effect and transmit a copy of the proceedings to the police officer in charge of the district in which the inquest is held.<\/p>\n 102. Where the President of the District Court is not satisfied as to the accuracy, legality or propriety of any finding or verdict he may, after affording the Attorney General an opportunity to be heard, exercise any of the powers vested in him by section 30, namely, in sum, to order the holding or re-opening of an inquest or to quash an inquest or verdict.<\/p>\n 103. The lawfulness of the procedure of an inquest and the findings of a\u00a0Coroner are subject to review by the Supreme Court by way of the prerogative writ of certiorari. An order of certiorari is corrective in nature (Andreas Epiphaniou, cited above). An order may be granted where, inter\u00a0alia, the coroner fails to observe the rules of natural justice, commits an error in the interpretation or application of the law or where there has been a violation of constitutional binding principles (see, inter alia, Andreas\u00a0Epiphaniou, cited above; re: certiorari application 115\/09 by KonstandinouIoannou and others concerning civil action 115\/99, judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 September 1999, (1999) 1 C.L.R. 1341; re:\u00a0application by Athanasios Poyiatzis for certiorari\/prohibition, judgment of the Supreme Court of 30 October 1995 in application 177\/95, (1995)1\u00a0C.L.R. 868; re: certiorari application by AvraamPittakis and another, concerning the verdict in inquest 12\/1986 – judgment of the Supreme Court of 20 April 1994 in civil appeal 8102, (1994)1 C.L.R. 297).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 104. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complained that the overall investigation into the death of Mr Nicolaou had been inadequate. They also complained about the fairness of the inquest proceedings.<\/p>\n 105. The Court finds that the applicants\u2019 complaints fall to be examined solely under the procedural limb of Article 2 \u00a7 1 which provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Scope of the complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n 106. The Court notes that the applicants\u2019 complaint in their application form which was communicated by the Court solely concerns the alleged failure of the Government to discharge their procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. Accordingly, this is the only aspect of the case that the Court will examine under Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies<\/em><\/p>\n (a) The parties\u2019 submissions<\/p>\n (i) The Government<\/p>\n 107. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in so far as their complaint concerned the second inquest proceedings.<\/p>\n 108. First of all, the applicants, who had been represented by a lawyer in those proceedings, had failed to call and examine witnesses, whose statements had been included in the police file and been filed as exhibits in the proceedings, and who might have been able to shed some light on matters such as Mr Nicolaou\u2019s state of mind during his forty days of military service at the camp. The witnesses included, in particular, the first applicant and Mr Nicolaou\u2019s priest. In accordance with domestic case-law (see paragraph 99 above) in situations where the circumstances under which a person came by his or her death were disputed, the examination of witnesses was aimed at prompting some doubt in the Coroner\u2019s mind as to the accuracy of the information submitted to him or her (see\u00a0paragraph\u00a099\u00a0above). The applicants had provided no explanation as to why they had failed to summon those witnesses.<\/p>\n 109. Secondly, the applicants had not challenged the second inquest proceedings and\/or the Coroner\u2019s verdict in those proceedings, as they had done with the first inquest proceedings, by applying to the Supreme Court for an order of certiorari. In the context of such an application, they could have raised any alleged failings in the inquest, including alleged errors of law, failure to observe the rules of natural justice, a violation of binding constitutional principles or a violation of the right to life (see\u00a0paragraph\u00a0103\u00a0above). Citing the Court\u2019s decision in the case of Kane\u00a0v. Cyprus ((dec.), no.33655\/06, 13 September 2011), the Government pointed out that, according to the Court\u2019s case-law, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of the success of a particular remedy that was not obviously futile was not a valid reason for failing to exhaust the domestic remedies; where there was doubt as to the prospects of success in a\u00a0particular case, it should be submitted to the domestic courts for resolution.<\/p>\n (ii) The applicants<\/p>\n 110. The applicants contested the Government\u2019s objection. As to the first ground of non-exhaustion put forward by the Government, they submitted that they failed to understand its relevance. Their complaint had nothing to do with the cross-examination of witnesses or the Coroner\u2019s evaluation of the testimony given by the first applicant and the priest. All\u00a0the relevant material had been before the Coroner and at no point had there been any suggestion in the inquest proceedings that the evidence of those witnesses had been misunderstood.<\/p>\n 111. With regard to the second ground, they observed that although the Coroner was a judge and the inquest was a judicial procedure, the Coroner\u2019s decision was not subject to an appeal or judicial review, but it was subject to review by means of an application for an order of certiorari. Referring to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in their certiorari application, they submitted that for the Supreme Court to grant such an order there had to be a clearly erroneous interpretation or application of the law (see\u00a0paragraphs\u00a039-40 above). Such errors should be ascertained by the court directly and without investigating the elements of the case or the testimony. This had not been the case here. Without a detailed examination of how the investigation was lacking and inadequate they could not further their case.<\/p>\n (b) The Court\u2019s assessment<\/p>\n 112. The Court considers that the Government\u2019s objection concerning the second inquest proceedings is closely linked to the merits of the present complaint. Consequently, the examination of these issues should be joined to the assessment of the merits of that complaint.<\/p>\n 2. Conclusion on the complaint\u2019s admissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 113. Lastly, the Court considers that the complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n C. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n (a) The applicants<\/p>\n 114. The applicants submitted that the State had failed to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. The overall investigation had been concluded thirteen years after his death but with no definite findings as to the circumstances of his death, and it had not led to any prosecutions. The multitude of investigations and different attempts to determine Mr Nicolaou\u2019s cause of death had all led to different conclusions. The applicants emphasised that their position throughout the years had consistently been that Mr Nicolaou had not committed suicide but that he had been murdered. There was never any serious investigation along those lines.<\/p>\n 115. The protracted length of the overall investigation did not satisfy the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition required under the procedural limb of Article 2, which was in itself a sufficient ground for finding a violation of that provision. Nevertheless, the applicants claimed that there had been serious shortcomings in the overall investigation into Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s death.<\/p>\n 116. With regard to the first police investigation, the applicants submitted that the Government had themselves acknowledged its inadequacy, the fact that the initial failings of the police could no longer be remedied, as well as the difficulties posed by the long lapse of time (see\u00a0paragraph 81 above). The Attorney General had also expressed doubts as to whether a further investigation by the police could achieve any substantive outcome (ibid.).<\/p>\n 117. The applicants pointed out that the initial investigation of the case had been assigned to a local police station and that the possibility that a criminal offence had been committed had not been pursued. The police had failed to adopt important, necessary measures. The applicants claimed that prior to his death Mr Nicolaou had been harassed, intimidated and threatened and had complained to his superiors the day before he had died. The fact that he had been mentally or psychologically stable made it all the more important to examine the circumstances of his case more thoroughly. The\u00a0Attorney General had admitted that the conduct of the army officers during the deceased\u2019s period of military service and just before his death had not been investigated (see paragraph 55 above).<\/p>\n 118. The applicants referred to the reports of O.P., P.K., D.G. and M.M. In particular, they relied heavily on M.M\u2019s findings and criticisms of the investigation into Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death, in particular those concerning the forensic examination conducted by P.S. and its findings.<\/p>\n 119. With regard to the investigation carried out by the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers, the applicants pointed out that although Mr Nicolaou\u2019s clothes had been tested and the DNA of three unknown men had been found on them (see paragraph 65 above) no further tests had been carried out to ascertain whether the DNA matched that of any of the soldiers with whom Mr Nicolaou had had problems and who had threatened him.<\/p>\n 120. The applicants heavily criticised the second police investigation, most importantly, the appointment and findings of S.S., as well as D.S.\u2019s findings. In their view D.S. and S.S. had tried not to expose the Government\u2019s failings in dealing with the case. They fervently questioned S.S.\u2019s independence and the reasons for his appointment given that M.M., who had been appointed by the Council of Ministers, had produced a\u00a0detailed report. In their observations, the applicants went through the replies given by S.S. in his report and findings (see paragraph 87 above), emphasising their flaws. They took the view that it was forensically impossible under the given circumstances to state with certainty, as S.S. had done, that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death had been caused from multiple injuries such as would be caused by a fall from a height (see\u00a0paragraph 88 above). It was also impossible in the circumstances to rule out the possibility that Mr\u00a0Nicolaou had been injured or killed elsewhere and that his body had been moved and placed under the bridge or that Mr Nicolaou had been injured or died prior to his body being dropped from the bridge.<\/p>\n 121. With regard to D.S., the applicants considered that the assignment of the investigation to a rank-and-file police officer indicated the lack of importance attributed by the police to the case. No information had been given on D.S\u2019s experience in investigating such cases. As to her report and its findings, the applicants argued that D.S. had attempted to minimise the possibility that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death could have been the result of a criminal act and that she had inexplicably ignored M.M.\u2019s findings and instead relied on S.S\u2019s report in reaching her conclusions. The applicants also submitted that some of her findings were contradictory, unreasonable and unsatisfactory.<\/p>\n 122. As regards the military investigation, the applicants noted that they had no evidence that it had not been sufficiently independent and impartial. However, they emphasised that the army had not acted promptly after his failure to report to camp and that the omissions in this investigation had been such as to amount to negligence, incompetence or a cover-up.<\/p>\n 123. Lastly, with regard to the inquest proceedings, they argued that if the second inquest had been sufficient in scope no further investigation into Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death would have been necessary.<\/p>\n (b) The Government<\/p>\n 124. The Government submitted that the procedural aspect of Article\u00a02\u00a0in the present case had been satisfied by a combination of the two police investigations, the investigation carried out by the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers and the inquest proceedings.<\/p>\n 125. They took the view that the overall investigation had covered all the crucial issues. This included the allegations of bullying. Neither the police, in the first police investigation, nor the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers had managed to secure any evidence to support the applicants\u2019 allegations that the deceased had been bullied and threatened during his military service and that he had reported these incidents to his superiors. The fresh police investigation had shed further light on the events that preceded the death and covered all key matters. D.S.\u2019s conclusions had been based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements, including an analysis of the evidence, both new evidence and that collected during the previous criminal investigations. D.S. in her report concluded that Mr Nicolaou had been the victim of hazing, teasing and mockery by his fellow soldiers and that his superiors had known of this. There was no evidence however to connect these events with his death. Nor\u00a0was there any evidence that Mr Nicolaou had been mentally or psychologically unstable, something with which the applicants also agreed, though it seemed that at the material time something had been troubling him.<\/p>\n 126. In so far as the applicant\u2019s claims concerned the testing of the genetic material found on Mr Nicolaou\u2019s clothes, the Government noted that the clothes had been kept by the applicants for seven years before they were given to the CIGN for testing in 2012. They referred to the reservations expressed by the director of the forensic genetics laboratory of CING, in his statement to the criminal investigators (see paragraph 65 above).<\/p>\n 127. The Government submitted that the fresh police investigation and the conclusions reached therein were important for the effectiveness of the overall investigation. Final conclusions on the causes of death were reached, something which had remained unclear following the investigation carried out by the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers. According to D.S., Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s had died from injuries caused by a fall. Consequently, he had not been killed by punching, kicking, being hit with a blunt instrument with his body being placed under the bridge where it was found in order to make it look like suicide nor had his death been the result of the use of force by state agents, soldiers and personnel. Nor had there been a\u00a0cover up as the applicants had suggested. The circumstances under which Mr\u00a0Nicolaou had fallen from the bridge in Alassa remained unclear: it had not been possible to ascertain whether he had deliberately fallen from the bridge or whether the fall had been an accident. In any event, there was no evidence indicating that the death had been the result of a criminal act.<\/p>\n 128. In the framework of the fresh criminal investigation the expert opinion of a forensic pathologist had been sought, to whom specific questions were posed, in the light of the opinions expressed by the forensic pathologists and experts appointed by the applicants and by M.M. A fresh statement had also been taken from P.S., the first forensic pathologist, who had given further detailed explanations. The investigation proceeded with obvious lines of inquiry but also explored various avenues suggested by the applicant, including the hypothesis that Mr Nicolaou had been ambushed outside the camp on 29 September 2005 and been murdered by the soldiers who had bullied him. These lines of inquiry had not revealed that the death had been the result of a criminal act, or that any of the persons considered by the applicants as responsible for his death had been involved in his death.<\/p>\n 129. The Government submitted that they had done everything possible to investigate the circumstances under which Mr Nicolaou had died; they had managed to establish the facts preceding his death and reach final and comprehensive conclusions as to the cause of death. The fact that it had not been possible to ascertain whether Mr Nicolaou had deliberately fallen from the bridge or if the fall had been an accident, was no reflection on the adequacy of the investigation. The Government drew attention to the fact that the obligation under the procedural aspect of Article 2 was one of means, not result. The persons who had been responsible for and carried out the three criminal investigations had been independent, as required by the Court\u2019s case law. The investigations were all criminal in nature and capable of establishing the circumstances of death and attributing criminal responsibility, if appropriate.<\/p>\n 130. The Government maintained that the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition had been met: there had been a prompt response by the authorities after Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death, and during the thirteen years that followed there had been two inquests and three criminal investigations as well as divergent opinions submitted by forensic pathologists. Following the last investigation, the Attorney General had urged the army to establish a system of effective monitoring and identification of practices such as bullying within the army, for the purposes of eliminating them and if necessary, intervening and punishing those responsible (see paragraph 97 above). The Government added that the overall investigation had been accessible to the deceased\u2019s family.<\/p>\n 131. Lastly, the Government submitted that in view of the fact that there was no question of a substantive obligation under Article 2 in the instant case, the inquest, which had determined the cause of death and provided answers to questions of liability, that is to say that Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death had been the result of injuries caused by falling from a height and that there was no evidence of third party criminal liability, had been sufficient in scope for the purposes of the procedural obligation under Article 2.<\/p>\n 2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n (a) General principles<\/p>\n 132. The right to life guaranteed under Article 2 of the Convention ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and also enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see, among many other authorities, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no.\u00a056080\/13, \u00a7\u00a0164, 19 December 2017).<\/p>\n 133. The Court reiterates that by requiring a State to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction, Article 2 imposes a duty on that State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions. This obligation requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when there is reason to believe that an individual has sustained life-threatening injuries in suspicious circumstances, even where the presumed perpetrator of the fatal attack is not a State agent (see\u00a0Mustafa\u00a0Tun\u00e7 and FecireTun\u00e7 v.\u00a0Turkey [GC], no.\u00a024014\/05, \u00a7 171, 14\u00a0April 2015). The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see, inter alia, Lari v. the Republic of Moldova, no.\u00a037847\/13, \u00a7 34, 15 September 2015, with further references).<\/p>\n 134. In order to be \u201ceffective\u201d as this expression is to be understood in the context of Article 2 of the Convention, an investigation must firstly be adequate. That is, it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (Mustafa Tun\u00e7 and FecireTun\u00e7, cited above, \u00a7 172).<\/p>\n 135. The obligation to conduct an effective investigation is an obligation not of result but of means: the authorities must take the reasonable measures available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident at issue (ibid.,\u00a0\u00a7 173).<\/p>\n 136. In any event, the authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter\u00a0alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death. Any\u00a0deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (ibid., \u00a7 174).<\/p>\n 137. In particular, the investigation\u2019s conclusions must be based on thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements. Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation\u2019s ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible (ibid., \u00a7 175).<\/p>\n 138. Nevertheless, the nature and degree of scrutiny which satisfy the minimum threshold of the investigation\u2019s effectiveness depend on the circumstances of the particular case. It is not possible to reduce the variety of situations which might occur to a bare check-list of acts of investigation or other simplified criteria (ibid., \u00a7 176).<\/p>\n 139. The procedural obligation also requires that persons responsible for the investigations should be independent of anyone implicated or likely to be implicated in the events (ibid, \u00a7 177); it imposes a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (ibid., \u00a7 178); and in addition, it means that the investigation must be accessible to the victim\u2019s family to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (ibid., \u00a7 179).<\/p>\n 140. Article 2 does not impose a duty on the investigating authorities to satisfy every request for a particular investigative measure made by a\u00a0relative in the course of the investigation (ibid., \u00a7 180).<\/p>\n 141. The question of whether an investigation has been sufficiently effective must be assessed on the basis of all relevant facts and with regard to the practical realities of investigation work (ibid., \u00a7 181).<\/p>\n (b) Application of the general principles to the present case<\/p>\n 142. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that two police investigations, a military investigation, an investigation by two criminal investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers and two inquest proceedings were conducted. The overall investigation into Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s death, which spanned approximately thirteen years, was brought to a close in September 2018 with the Attorney General\u2019s decision that it had not been possible to secure evidence indicating that Mr\u00a0Nicolaou\u2019s death had been the result of a criminal act (see paragraph 96 above).<\/p>\n 143. In the course of all those years, the authorities attempted, by means of various investigative measures, to shed light on the events of 29\u00a0September\u00a02005 and establish the circumstances of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. However, despite these efforts they were not able to do so and the various investigations resulted in divergent findings.<\/p>\n 144. At the outset, the Court notes that the various reports in the case\u2011file, namely those of the different investigations and the forensic pathologists or experts, present differences in opinion and contradictory arguments. It is not, however, for the Court to analyse their respective findings and take a position or reach conclusions on the circumstances and the cause of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. The Court\u2019s task is to examine whether the overall investigation conducted was effective within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 145. It transpires from the case-file that the root of the problem lay in the initial police investigation which was marred by a number of significant shortcomings. This was acknowledged both by the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers and the Attorney General (see paragraphs 66-70 and 81 above).<\/p>\n 146. In this connection, the Court observes that it emerges from the case-file that the entire initial police investigation was from the very beginning conducted on the premise that this was a simple case of an unnatural death and that Mr Nicolaou had most likely taken his own life, never seriously questioning this premise or endeavouring to verify any other possible scenario (see paragraphs 41, 43 and 67 above). As a consequence, the investigation was not carried out by experienced criminal police investigators with forensic experience and the line of investigation was limited, leading to oversights and, as many questions were left unanswered, a tenuous conclusion.<\/p>\n 147. The Court takes note of the omissions in this initial investigation as pinpointed by the investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers in their report of 21\u00a0December 2012, and which they attributed to the police and the forensic pathologist, P.S. These included, inter alia, the failure to immediately take sufficient measures to adequately protect the area where Mr Nicolaou\u2019s body had been found in order to limit contamination of the scene; to carry out a thorough examination of the scene; the unmeticulous collection of evidence and the failure to gather certain items of evidence, such as DNA samples from Mr Nicolaou\u2019s car and personal belongings, namely, his glasses, wrist watch, wallet and clothes and to test the vomit found next to him as well as the sand and water found in his mouth; and the failure to investigate the provenance of the beers that Mr Nicolaou had drunk (see paragraph 67 above).<\/p>\n 148. Moreover, although the allegations, in particular those of the first applicant, concerning the treatment meted out to Mr Nicolaou in the camp by his fellow soldiers, were looked into by the police during the initial investigation, as the investigators pointed out, statements had not been taken from all the soldiers serving in Mr Nicolaou\u2019s squadron (see paragraph 67 above). Furthermore, as admitted by the Attorney General, the conduct of the army officers as such during the period of Mr Nicolaou\u2019s military service and, particularly, at the time preceding his death had not been investigated (see paragraph 55 above). Indeed, the initial police report did not even mention the problems faced by Mr Nicolaou in the army (see\u00a0paragraph 26 above), never mind whether they could have had any link to his death.<\/p>\n 149. These omissions undermined the plausibility of the findings of the initial investigation. They also fuelled the applicants\u2019 suspicions of a\u00a0cover\u2011up. A more careful and thorough collection of evidence could have shed light on the circumstances surrounding some crucial aspects of the case, clarified certain matters, given less ground for misgivings and avoided the need for further investigations.<\/p>\n 150. By the time the criminal investigators appointed by the Council of Ministers took over the case in May 2011, nearly six years had passed since Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death. The fresh police investigation commenced ten years after his death. Even though these investigations were more thorough, the passage of time had undermined their effectiveness and certain essential failings could no longer be remedied. This was acknowledged by the Attorney General (see paragraph 81 above). The Court reiterates, in this connection, that the mere passage of time can work to the detriment of the investigation, and even fatally jeopardise its chances of success (see,\u00a0mutatis\u00a0mutandis, Talpis\u00a0v.\u00a0Italy, no.\u00a041237\/14, \u00a7 128, 2 March 2017). It also observes that the passage of time will inevitably erode the amount and quality of the evidence available (see, see, mutatis mutandis, Paul\u00a0and\u00a0Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477\/99, \u00a7 86, ECHR 2002\u2011II). In this connection, it is noted that any tests carried out on physical evidence after so many years, in the absence of proper storage, could not be reliable (see paragraphs 65 and 84 above).<\/p>\n 151. Further, the Court observes that nothing has been put forward to show that inquest proceedings would have been able to remedy the particular failings in the initial police investigation.<\/p>\n 152. In addition to the deficiencies in the initial police investigation, the Court notes that the military investigation that was carried out was superficial and limited in scope. It simply adopted the conclusion of suicide without substantiation (see paragraphs 27 and 29 above) and in spite of the fact that neither the police nor P.S. had actually reached such a conclusion in their respective reports (see\u00a0paragraphs 18 and 26 above).<\/p>\n 153. In conclusion, the Court finds that the foregoing considerations are sufficient to establish that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr Nicolaou\u2019s death and accordingly that there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. Consequently, it also dismisses the plea of non-exhaustion raised by the Government.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 154. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 155. The applicants, without invoking a specific sum, claimed non\u2011pecuniary damage. They stressed the devastation they had gone through with the loss of Mr Nicolaou and the unjustifiable anguish they had suffered during all these years of multiple investigations and procedures and having to deal with reluctant and uncooperative authorities. They had fought to have an effective investigation and had taken numerous steps to that end.<\/p>\n 156. The Government did not comment on the applicants\u2019 claims.<\/p>\n 157. The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 2 under its procedural head on account of the respondent Government\u2019s failure to provide an effective investigation into the death of Mr Nicolaou.<\/p>\n 158. As a result of the violation as found the applicants suffered non\u2011pecuniary damage which cannot be made good merely by the finding of a violation.<\/p>\n 159. Having regard to the reasons for which it has found a violation and the circumstances of the case, the Court, ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, decides that an award of EUR\u00a032,000 should be paid by the respondent Government to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts.<\/p>\n B. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 160. The applicants also claimed a total of 62,200 euros (EUR) for the costs and expenses incurred on the domestic level and before the Court. This amount included the following:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 34,200 for the fees of O.P., P.K., D.G. and M.G. and the applicants\u2019 travel expenses to meet with these experts.<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 28,000 as legal fees: specifically legal fees amounting to EUR\u00a07,500 for the first inquest proceedings; EUR 6,000 for the second inquest proceedings; EUR 4,000 for the certiorari proceedings; EUR 4,500 for legal advice pending the investigation of the two criminal investigators and EUR\u00a06,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. In\u00a0connection to the latter amount, the applicant claimed VAT at 19% and stated that this sum was an estimate and that they had not been invoiced yet.<\/p>\n 161. The Government submitted that the applicants could not recover costs and expenses which were not reasonable as to quantum, were not supported by relevant receipts and had not been necessarily incurred.<\/p>\n 162. The Court notes that the applicants have failed to submit any supporting documents – such as itemised bills or invoices \u2013 substantiating their claim. None of the sums claimed are accounted for. The Court accordingly makes no award under this head.<\/p>\n C. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 163. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Joins the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to the merits and rejects it;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention EUR 32,000 (thirty\u2011two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 January 2020, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stephen Phillips\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Paul Lemmens
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nHelen Keller,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nMar\u00eda El\u00f3segui,
\nGilberto Felici,
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n