A/HRC/13/24 Turkish Cypriot Properties Management Service, which manages property that Turkish Cypriots left behind. The Government also continues to raise national awareness of the internal displacement problem, maintain data on the numbers of IDPs, and cooperate with international organizations. Significant financial resources are also allocated to assist IDPs. The UPR summary mentions that the Government has established conditions and provided the means for IDPs in areas under its control to assist them to settle where they are.31 22. UNFICYP continues to assist Turkish Cypriots living in the south to obtain identity documents, housing, welfare services, medical care, employment and education.32 Freedom of expression 23. In the case of Foka v. Turkey (2009), the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression. The applicant, a Greek-Cypriot resident in northern Cyprus, travelled on 13 January 1995 to the Ledra Palace checkpoint to cross into the north. At the checkpoint, agents of the northern part of Cyprus took the applicant to a police station, where a number of cassettes, books, a diary and maps were confiscated. The Court considered that this confiscation did not correspond to a “pressing social need”. The applicant was awarded just satisfaction to the value of the confiscated items.33 Right to life 24. With regard to the Solomou v. Turkey (2008), Isaak v. Turkey (2008) and Kakoulli v. Turkey (2006) cases,34 the CoE CMD, at its 1059th meeting in June 2009, noted with interest, inter alia, the information presented during the debate by the Turkish authorities and the Cypriot authorities concerning the individual measures in the case of Kakoulli. It considered that this information needed to be assessed; invited the Turkish authorities to provide information on any individual measures taken or envisaged in the cases of Isaak and Solomou; noted with interest the information provided by the Turkish authorities on the relevant general measures, in particular on the legislative provisions on the use of firearms and use of force, and invited the Turkish authorities to provide this information in writing in order that it might be assessed. It recalled that information is also awaited in relation to the cases of Isaak and Solomou, in particular on the regulatory framework governing the peaceful, parallel conduct of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations and measures to ensure the effective investigation into killings of civilians in the northern part of the island. 25. Regarding the Adali case (2005),35 according to information provided by the Turkish authorities, an additional inquiry into the death of Mr. Adali was carried out, following a letter of 24 March 2006 from the Prosecutor General to the police authorities ordering them to initiate an additional investigation, taking into account the shortcomings identified by the European Court in its judgement. On 12 March 2009, the Turkish authorities wrote to the applicant informing her of the new inquiry carried out following the judgement of the Court. The letter states that given the amount of time that had elapsed, the authorities were 31 32 33 34 35 8 Ibid., para. 38. S/2009/248, para. 32. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, notes on the Foka v. Turkey case (28940/95). The cases of Solomou v. Turkey (2008) and Isaak v. Turkey (2008) concern the killing in 1996 of the applicants’ relatives in the context of Greek-Cypriot demonstrations in the area of the United Nations buffer zone in Cyprus, and the lack of an effective investigation into their killing. The Kakoulli v. Turkey case (2006) concerns the killing of the applicants’ husband and father, in 1996, by Turkish soldiers on guard duty along the ceasefire line in Cyprus and the lack of an effective and impartial investigation into this killing in violation of article 2 of the ECHR. Source: Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies Decisions, notes on the Adali case (38187/97). GE.10-11644