Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

Turkey has been found guilty again at the ECHR.

Condemned Guilty and Fined for the Murder of the unarmed Stelios Panayi in 1996 in contravention of the ECHR Article 2, The Right to Life.

Found Guilty not just of his Murder, but also of shooting at UN Peacekeepers to prevent them giving first-aid that may have saved his life.

Condolences to his family.

From http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... udoc-pr-en

"Press release issued by the Registrar

Chamber judgment1

Kallis and Androulla Panayi v. Turkey (Application no. 45388/99)
SOLDIER KILLED BY TURKISH AUTHORITIES IN THE UN BUFFER ZONE IN CYPRUS
Two violations of Article 2 (right to life)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 35,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 9,888.30 for costs and expenses.
(The judgment is available only in English).
Principal facts
The applicants, Kallis Panayi and Mrs Androulla Panayi, are two Cypriot nationals who were born in 1947 and 1950 respectively and live in Nicosia. They are a married couple.
The parties disagree as to the facts of the case.
According to the applicants, on the early morning of 3 June 1996, their son Stelios Kalli Panayi who was nineteen years old at the time and serving in the Cyprus National Guard as a private soldier, entered the United Nations (UN) buffer zone in Nicosia to exchange his hat with one belonging to a soldier of the Turkish-Cypriot armed forces. He was off duty and unarmed. The Turkish armed forces shot him. When members of the UN force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) attempted to reach him in order to provide medical treatment needed to save his life, the Turkish armed forces opened fire and did not allow it, as a result of which he died.
According to the Turkish Government the incident took place in the Turkish part of the buffer zone. On the day in question, a fully armed Greek Cypriot soldier, Stelios Kalli Panayi, wearing army uniform entered the buffer zone making gestures by hand and calling the Turkish-Cypriot soldiers to go over to him. They warned him several times in a loud voice in Turkish, English and Greek not to approach but he ignored their warning and entered the buffer zone by crossing the wooden bridge which only UNFICYP soldiers were allowed to use. Two warning shots were fired by Turkish-Cypriot soldiers at him. As he did not stop, one more shot was fired to stop him. On hearing the gunshots, a UNFICYP came towards the place where the gunshots had been heard and was about to cross the bridge. However, he was warned by two shots fired into the air by the Turkish soldiers not to advance any further, as it was not known whether Stelios Kalli Panayi had not adopted a more advantageous crawling position. At 7.01 a.m. an ambulance arrived in the area by the Peace Force patrol road. Stelios Kalli Panayi was placed in the ambulance, which left for the hospital. Later, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities were informed that he had died.
On 7 June 1996 the UN Secretary-General issued a report on the incident stating that an unarmed National Guard soldier was shot and killed inside the UN buffer zone in central Nicosia. The investigation revealed that the lethal round was fired by a Turkish-Cypriot soldier whom members of the UN force in Cyprus observed entering the buffer zone with his rifle strung across his back. UN soldiers were prevented from reaching the National Guard soldier by Turkish-Cypriot soldiers who fired shots in the direction of the UNFICYP soldiers each time the latter tried to move forward.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 2, the applicants complained about their son having been killed by the Turkish armed forces and about there not having been an effective investigation into the killing.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 November 1996.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President,
Lech Garlicki (Poland),
Giovanni Bonello (Malta),
Ljiljana Mijovi? (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
I??l Karaka? (Turkey),
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges,

and Fato? Arac?, Deputy Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Killing of Stelios Panayi
The Court noted that it had not been contested by the parties that the applicants’ son had voluntarily crossed the UN buffer zone. The Turkish Government had also accepted that it had been a Turkish soldier who had fired and killed Stelios Panayi. Furthermore, the Court noted the UN report issued about the incident. Although Stelios had been wearing uniform and hence one could have assumed that he might have carried a gun, that fact alone could not in the circumstances have justified the shots fired at him. The Turkish soldiers had been in complete control of the area and Stelios’ behaviour had not posed a threat to them; consequently the soldiers would have been able to stop him without jeopardising his life.
The Court further observed that, as the UN Secretary General had reported, UN soldiers had been prevented from reaching Stelios and providing him with medical treatment. The Court found unanimously that Stelios Panayi had been killed by representatives of the Turkish authorities who had used excessive force, not justified by the circumstances of the case, in violation of Article 2.
Inadequate investigation into the killing
The Court observed that the Turkish Government had only produced a few notes prepared by the military authorities and describing the basic events surrounding the shooting of Stelios Kalli Panayi on the basis of the versions given by the soldiers involved in it. The versions had not been challenged in the light of the material evidence available to the Turkish authorities or of the statements of the UN personnel. In addition, the investigation had been carried out by the same body to which those implicated in the events belonged: it could therefore hardly be described as “independent”. Furthermore, the question of the criminal liability of the Turkish soldier who had killed Mr Panayi had never been even examined by the domestic authorities. Consequently, the Court found that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Stelios Panayi, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2. "

[insan]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

The guilty is the TC security forces commander that most probably does not have a rule or law regarding how soldiers should act in such situations. Though even a little common sense could urge TC soldier to shoot him from the legs...

[Hermes]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

Idiot! How about not shooting someone who was not a threat? Read the verdict before posting such nonsense.

[insan]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

Idiot! How about not shooting someone who was not a threat? Read the verdict before posting such nonsense.

Hassikdir be göt! Retard!

[Hermes]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

Idiot! How about not shooting someone who was not a threat? Read the verdict before posting such nonsense.

Hassikdir be göt! Retard!

Don't you dare come onto a public forum and argue that it is okay to shoot someone in the legs. Don't you care how people perceive you? Are you proud to be a barbarian? Show some respect, if not for yourself, then for the dead man's relatives.

[Expatkiwi]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

The guilty is the TC security forces commander that most probably does not have a rule or law regarding how soldiers should act in such situations. Though even a little common sense could urge TC soldier to shoot him from the legs...

Soldiers are trained to kill, not wound. I know this because of my military service years ago. Its trained to be a reflex: you use your weapon, kill the target. hindsight is always 20-20. Foresight generally never is.

[-mikkie2-]

NO excuse to shoot someone, even in the legs. The verdict of the ECHR is very clear on this. Just because they are soldiers does not mean that they can fire their weapons at will.

The clear aim of the Turkish soldiers was to shoot to kill, no questions asked. The thought of even stopping him by shooting him in the legs was not even considered. It was cold blooded murder.

[B25]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

The guilty is the TC security forces commander that most probably does not have a rule or law regarding how soldiers should act in such situations. Though even a little common sense could urge TC soldier to shoot him from the legs...

Yeah, 'The best in Nato' as someone else stated. You can imagine them in '74 can't you, a massacre, rampaging murdering, no holds barred. F barbarians and these are the people that want compromise from us, pft!

[bill cobbett]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

The guilty is the TC security forces commander that most probably does not have a rule or law regarding how soldiers should act in such situations. Though even a little common sense could urge TC soldier to shoot him from the legs...

Soldiers are trained to kill, not wound. I know this because of my military service years ago. Its trained to be a reflex: you use your weapon, kill the upcoming target. hindsight is always 20-20. Foresight generally never is.

Lack of foresight can never be an excuse for murder. This was a premeditated killing.

I do not know of any military training which involves shooting at UN Peacekeepers whilst they are trying to administer life-saving first-aid (as the ECHR condemns in its judgement above).

There is a chance here for all to join together, to show their humanity, by condemning this poor boy's murder and his murderers without any qualifications. Sadly I fear some will not take this opportunity.

[insan]

TC soldier should aim at the legs of GC soldier if he wanted to stop him. It is obvious that he aimed to kill GC soldier. This is the first mistake. The second mistake is shooting to not allow UN personal to help the GC soldier... and the 3rd mistake is not bringing the killer to a trial...

Idiot! How about not shooting someone who was not a threat? Read the verdict before posting such nonsense.

Hassikdir be göt! Retard!

Don't you dare come onto a public forum and argue that it is okay to shoot someone in the legs. Don't you care how people perceive you? Are you proud to be a barbarian? Show some respect, if not for yourself, then for the dead man's relatives.

Although Stelios had been wearing uniform and hence one could have assumed that he might have carried a gun, that fact alone could not in the circumstances have justified the shots fired at him. The Turkish soldiers had been in complete control of the area and Stelios’ behaviour had not posed a threat to them; consequently the soldiers would have been able to stop him without jeopardising his life.

How could TC soldiers be sure he was not in a mentally collapsed mood and wouldn't fire at TC soldiers? Though as i stated in my previous post, TC soldier was able to shoot him on the leg so that the life of GC soldier wouldn't have been jeopardised.