The Supreme Court has issued a habeas corpus order for the release of a Syrian detainee who had been detained for more than 19 months on suspicion of belonging to the Al Nusra terrorist organization, following a complaint from a compatriot. Eventually it became clear that there was a dispute between the two families, which had nothing to do with politics or terrorism.
From the findings of the authorities responsible for the security of the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled in its decision of 2 July, “it appears that the applicant cannot now be considered a sufficiently serious threat to the national security of the Republic to be justified, as a proportionate in relation to the purpose it pursues and the time that it exists from 13.11.2019, beyond 19 months, its further detention “.
This is the second time the applicant has invoked the power of the Supreme Court to issue such a privileged warrant. Among other things, it is stated that on 5.8.2020, the applicant also appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging violations of his fundamental rights by the authorities of the Republic.
According to the facts of the case, the applicant, a Syrian national, entered the occupied territories on November 13, 2019 and applied for international protection the next day. On the same day, a detention order was issued against him for reasons of national security and since then he has been detained, after the first days, at the Detention Center of Forbidden Immigrants in Menogeia. His detention order was issued on the basis of information from his compatriot (UA), who stated that the applicant was possibly in Cyprus and that he was a member of the terrorist organization “Al Nusra” and one of the persons who attacked him with weapons in Syria and injured him.
The applicant, who also saw photographs of the UAE, claims that he does not know him, nor does he know about his injuries depicted in the photographs, nor his motives for reporting him. He cites a statement made by his cousin, which he presented, to confirm his positions.
“It appears from this statement that H.A. indeed he was attacked at gunpoint in Syria in 2016. According to the Applicant's cousin this had taken place in the context of a dispute between the U.A. family. and the applicant's family, which had nothing to do with politics or terrorism, “it added.
The applicant, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, “states his cousin, was then a minor and had no involvement in the incident, nor was he present. The person who attacked the U.A. is named as he was imprisoned. The cousin had been summoned to the Anti-Crime Department in Limassol, where he went with his brother and another compatriot and all three testified on the matter, supporting the applicant's position. “
“On the basis of the U.A. complaint, the applicant was deemed a person dangerous to the security of the state. The competent authorities of the Republic investigated the information and on 12.3.2020 testimonies were received from third parties claiming that the applicant's family cooperated with many organizations and sold weapons. “Since then, the applicant's case has been the subject of repeated meetings at the Police Headquarters for Terrorism, during which it was re-evaluated and it was deemed necessary to continue his detention”, he continues.
“The issuance of a detention order of the applicant was deemed justified, but undoubtedly, further investigation was required. Much more when the next day, 15.11.2019, a testimony was received from a brother of the UA, who was not in Syria when the incident occurred, who testified with reference to the incident and in relation to their family and the Mahmoud family that “I do not know exactly how these differences arose but as far as I know it was for women”.
Reference is made, among other things, to a letter from the Anti-Crime Department of the Police Headquarters to the Commander of the Central Intelligence Service, dated 8.4.2021, from which “it appears that the Authorities have found after examinations that members of the applicant's family were involved in the armed attack and the injury of H.A. “But the reasons for the attack do not refer to the religious and political beliefs of the victim, but to personal differences between their families.” It is also reported that the applicant's family has opposed the current political regime in Syria. “
“The finding in relation to the specific political position concerns the family of the applicant and not the applicant himself, and most importantly the adoption of a political position does not contain anything reprehensible, unless the political position, regardless of its orientation, leads in unlawful conduct, which has not been established in this case and does not link political belief to any terrorist act or participation in a terrorist organization. The involvement in the incident reported by the U.S. again concerns members of the applicant's family. The applicant himself, who was then
minor, not connected “, it is added.
At this point in time, the Supreme Court finds, “the incident itself is not classified as terrorist by the authorities, and it appears that the fact that the applicant's family possessed weapons does not constitute a terrorist, apparently given the situation prevailing in Syria. After all, H.A. himself he was armed at the time of the incident and returned fire. “
“From the above findings of the authorities responsible for the security of the Republic, it appears that the applicant can not be considered as a sufficiently serious threat to the national security of the Republic, in order to be justified, as proportionate to the purpose pursued and the time that it exists from 13.11.2019, beyond 19 months, his further detention “, the Court decides ordering that the applicant be released.
€ 1 million for the firefighter injury – He was sent untrained and with an unsuitable vehicle overnight in the flames
Regulations for promotions: Within six months brigadiers will be promoted to the rank of lieutenant general