Doros Polykarpou
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2015-018-001
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2015
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 35.126413
Longitude: 33.429859
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Cyprus
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- Dates of prior UN action
- 5 June 2014; 5 March 2015
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Male
- Was the victim a foreign national?
- No
- Was the victim a minor?
- No
- Individual's/organization's activity
Executive Director of Action for Support, Equality and Antiracism
- Type of rights defended
- Caste/Ethnic minorities' rights/Racism
- Migrants’/refugees’/IDP’s rights
- Was the victim a civil servant, member of the security forces or of the judiciary?
- No
- Reported trigger of reprisal
for having submitted an alternative report on the situation of detained undocumented migrants, including at the Mennogeia Detention Centre, to the Committee prior to the consideration of the State’s fourth periodic report (CAT/C/CYP/4) at its fifty-second session (see also A/HRC/28/85, case CYP 3/2014)
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Treaty Bodies: CAT
- Dates of engagement
- Unclear
- Type of attempted engagement
- Submission of information to UN
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 29 May 2014
- Location of mentioned reprisals
- Mennogeia; Nicosia
- Reprisal information
On 29 May 2014, a few days after the Committee published its concluding observations, Mr. Polykarpou was reportedly arrested upon arrival at the detention centre by its administration for failing to pay a parking fine and transferred to the Central Prison in Nicosia, placed in a wing with convicted prisoners and denied access to a lawyer and drinking water. Mr. Polykarpou was released later that day after his organization paid the fine
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Detention/Imprisonment: Release within a day
- Physical attack: Torture/Cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- State actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Government response dates
- 5 August 2014
- Government response content
The Government, in its response of 5 August 2014 to a communication by mandate holders, stressed that it attributed great significance to human rights instruments and had provided information on the arrest warrants issued against Mr. Polykarpou (see A/HRC/28/85, case CYP 3/2014). Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in his report submitted to the Human Rights Council at its twenty- eighth session, requested additional information (A/HRC/28/68/Add.1, paras. 130-133). At the time of finalization of the present report, the Government had not responded to the latest request of the Special Rapporteur or the letters addressed by the Committee.
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 1
- In which SG report was this case followed up on? 0
- 2016
- Follow up information provided in SG report 0
40.In my previous report, reference was made to allegations of reprisals against Doros Polykarpou, Executive Director of Action for Support, Equality and Antiracism, for having submitted an alternative report on the situation of detained undocumented migrants to the Committee on Torture prior to the consideration of thefourth period report of Cyprus (see A/HRC/30/29, para.18). On 22 September 2015, duringthe general debate on agenda item5 duringthe thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council, the representative of Cyprus expressed the State’s commitment to preventing reprisals and, while referringto its response of 5 August 2014,stressed that thecase did not concern an act of reprisal against an activist but “a lawful, proportionate consequence stipulated equally for any citizen who has failed over a given period of time to comply with hisor her statutory responsibilities regarding outstanding fines, as imposed by a warrant issued by the Court”. The representative expressed thehope that relevant mandate holders would agree that the work of human rights defenders, with the greatest respect, “cannot be expected under any circumstance to override the fundamental democratic axiom of equality before the law”.
- Followup Trends 0
- No substantive information provided by SG report
- Did the government respond? 0
- Yes