A/HRC/31/21 26. During the period under review, UNFICYP remained in contact with local authorities to ensure that Turkish Cypriots living in the south had access to health, welfare and educational services (see S/2015/517, para. 24). In order to promote enhanced cooperation in old town Nicosia, UNFICYP facilitated meetings between the two Nicosia municipalities to develop joint projects on environmental, social and health issues of common concern (ibid., para. 22). In his report of July 2015, the Secretary-General noted that he had called upon both community leaders to exert efforts to create a climate conducive to achieving greater economic and social parity between the two sides and to widen and deepen economic, social, cultural, sporting or similar ties and contacts, including with a view to encouraging trade. Such contacts promoted trust between the communities and would help to address the Turkish Cypriots’ concerns of isolation. He had been pleased to note that early steps in that direction were being taken by the leaders, and he urged them to continue to address those issues and encouraged them to fully engage civil society in the ongoing process, with a view to fostering grass-roots support for a solution (ibid., para. 44). 27. UNFICYP continued to provide humanitarian support to 345 Greek Cypriots and 109 Maronites residing in the northern part of the island. In its report covering developments from 16 December 2014 to 20 June 2015, UNFICYP noted that although requests for Greek-speaking doctors to attend to the health needs of elderly Greek Cypriots and Maronites in the north were still to be addressed, Greek-language medical services were provided during that period (see S/2015/517, para. 23). Following the agreement of the two leaders, two Greek Cypriot nurses have been permitted to provide nursing services at a local clinic, one of whom has commenced his duties. 28. In the case of Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, before the European Court of Human Rights, the first applicant complained that violations arising as a result of his alleged abduction, ill-treatment and unlawful detention in December 2000 by Turkish Cypriot officials were the result of the discrimination he faced as a Greek Cypriot. On 2 June 2015, the Court held the non-discrimination part of the application manifestly illfounded and thus inadmissible. However, it found violations of articles 3 (ill-treatment) and 5 (4) (unlawful detention) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights), since his allegations of ill-treatment were not effectively investigated by the domestic authorities and because the remedies suggested by the Government of Turkey did not allow him to challenge effectively the lawfulness of his detention in a speedy manner. While Turkey had disputed its liability under the Convention for the alleged violations, the Court reiterated “that since Turkey exercised effective overall control over northern Cyprus, its responsibility could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers or officials in northern Cyprus but had also to be engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration, which had survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support”. The Court also stressed that “where the fact of such domination over the territory was established, it was not necessary to determine whether the Contracting State exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration; the fact that the local administration had survived as a result of the Contracting State’s military and other support entailed that State’s responsibility for its policies and actions”.16 16 8 European Court of Human Rights, Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 2 June 2015, application No. 13320/02, para. 150.