Nicosia, CY
26°C
3.6 m/s
57%

Cyprus Supreme Court orders the state to pay €100,000 in case of two people missing since 1974

04.09.2026 / 17:48
News Category

The Supreme Court of Cyprus unanimously found that the Republic of Cyprus had violated Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of two residents of the village of Stroggylos who went missing on 15 August 1974. The state was ordered to pay their relatives €100,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.

Cyprus Supreme Court orders the state to pay €100,000 in case of two people missing since 1974

Both men were unarmed. According to evidence presented to the court, they were taken from the village by fellow villagers — also citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, not military personnel. The fate of the missing men remains unknown.

The ruling overturned a 2017 judgment by the Nicosia District Court, which had dismissed the claim filed by the families in 2009. The Supreme Court concluded that the state had failed to conduct a targeted, specialised and thorough investigation, and that applying the same approach to all missing-person cases “was not adapted to the specific circumstances” of this case.

The court specifically stated that the obligation to conduct an effective investigation applies regardless of whether the crime was committed by state authorities or private individuals. The work of the Committee on Missing Persons does not satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention: its mandate is limited to determining whether a person is alive or dead and does not include identifying those responsible. The court did not accept the argument that the chaos following the events of 1974 provided justification.

“The failure of the state to conduct an effective investigation within a reasonable time deprived the applicants for decades of the opportunity to learn the truth” and left them “in a state of continuous suffering”, the ruling says. The court noted that the monetary compensation was awarded not as a benefit, but as recognition of the violation and an attempt to restore the relatives’ lost dignity.

Comments (0)