A/HRC/28/20 19. On 25 September 2014, the Committee of Ministers deplored the fact that, despite an interim resolution adopted on the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey,15 in which the Court found there had been a violation of the right to life and established the need for an effective investigation, the Turkish authorities had not complied with their obligation to pay the amounts awarded by the Court (see also para. 35 below).16. 20. With regard to Turkish Cypriot victims, on 11 March 2014, in Gürtekin and Others v. Cyprus, the Court declared inadmissible three applications of relatives of men who had disappeared during inter-communal conflicts in 1963-1964, and whose bodies had been found during the exhumation programme of the Committee on Missing Persons. Although the applicants argued that the Government’s investigation was ineffective, the Court did not find an infringement of the minimum standard required under article 2 of the Convention. The Court acknowledged the applicant’s frustration that potential suspects had been questioned, and that apparently no further steps were going to be taken, but stressed that “article 2 cannot be interpreted so as to impose a requirement on the authorities to launch a prosecution irrespective of the evidence which is available.”17 The applicants also argued that the decision of holding the evidence insufficient to justify a prosecution should have been submitted for decision by a court; the judges of the European Court of Human Rights stated, however, that it was not for them “to micro-manage the functioning of, and procedures applied in, criminal investigative and justice systems in Contracting States which may well vary in their approach and policies.”18 21. The approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights in Gürtekin contrasts with the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture on the fourth periodic report of Cyprus, adopted on 21 May 2014. While welcoming the fact that the Attorney General had opened some criminal investigations as a result of the identification of remains by the Committee on Missing Persons, the Committee against Torture noted that some relatives of missing persons had not been given the opportunity to challenge the acts or omissions of the investigating authorities in court. 19 The Committee against Torture recommended that Cyprus redouble its efforts to guarantee the relatives of missing persons identified by the Committee on Missing Persons receive appropriate redress, including the means for psychological rehabilitation, compensation and satisfaction, and for the implementation of the right to truth. In its general comment No. 3, the Committee against Torture emphasized that a State’s failure to investigate, criminally prosecute or allow civil proceedings related to allegations of acts of torture in a prompt manner may constitute a de facto denial of redress and thus constitute a violation of its obligations under article 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 15 16 17 18 19 Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)201, adopted in 2013 on the case of Varnava. See European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and Others v. Turkey (applications Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90), Grand Chamber judgement of 18 September 2009. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, interim resolution adopted at the 1208th meeting on 25 September 2014 (CM/ResDH(2014)185) on the cases of Varnava and Others v. Turkey and XenidesAristis group. European Court of Human Rights, Gürtekin and Others v. Cyprus (applications nos. 60441/13, 68206/13 and 68667/13), decision of 11 March 2014, para. 27. Ibid., para. 28. CAT/C/CYP/CO/4, para. 21. See also the submission to the Committee against Torture by the Association of Martyr’s Families and War Veterans of 1 April 2014 (available from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/CYP/INT_CAT_CSS_CYP_16954_ E.pdf). 7