1 CX.B. 1988April28 ' (DEMETR1ADES,J.) INTHEMATTEROFERDINCUCKAC. AND INTHEMATTEROFANAPPLICATION FORAWRITOF HABEASCORPUSADSUBJICIENDUM. (CivilApplication No. 66/88). Constitutional Law—Arrest and detention of aliens—Constitution, Art. 11.2(f)—Once an alien is declared undesirable and an order of deportationismade, itispermissible todetainhimforsuchperiod as itisnecessary forarrangement ofhis deportation. 5 Aliens—Statusof, under InternationalLaw. The applicant, who is an alien, was declared by the Minister of Interior under s.6 of Cap. 105 as a prohibited immigrant. The Minister issued, also, an order for his deportation. As a result the applicant was arrested.· 10 15 Bymeans ofthisapplication for Habeas Corpusad subjiciendum the applicant prays for, his release, alleging that his detention is contrarytoArt. 11ofthe Constitution. • . Held, desmissing the application: {l)"By Article 32 of the Constitution, the Republicisgiventherighttoregulate,bymeansof laws, any matter relating to aliens, inaccordance with International Law.
(2)Art.11.2(0oftheConstitutionallowsthearrestordetention ofan alien against whom action isbeing taken with a viewto deportation or extradition. 20 25
(3)Itis internationally accepted that when an alien enters into a Statehefallsundertheterritorialsupremacyofthatstateandisunder itsjurisdiction and isresponsible to itfor all acts he commits on its territory.
(4)Therightof States toexpel aliensisrecognized internationally nd thisapplieswhetherthealien isonlyon atemporaryvisitorhas a even settled down for professional or business purposes·on the territoryoftheState, havingtaken hisdomicile therein. 271 InraUckac
(1988)
(5)TheprovisionsofArticlell
(2)(f) ofourConstitution areclear and unambiguousand theygivetherighttothe Republic,oncean alien is declared an undesirable immigrant and an order for his deportation ismade,todetainhimforsuchperiodasitisnecessary forarrangementstobemadeforhisdeportation. 5 Applicationdismissed. Casesreferredto: Karaliotasv.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R.
- Application. Application by Erdinc Uckacfor an order of habeas corpus ad 10 subjiciendum praying for hisrelease from detention. M.Schizaswith N.Pirillides, forthe applicant. P. Clerides, forthe respondent. Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment This is an 15 application madebytheapplicantMr.ErdincUckacforanorderof habeas corpus ad subjiciendum bywhich he prays for his release from detention. The facts of thiscaseare inbrief the following: On the22nd March, 1988,the Ministerof Interior, on thebasis 20 of information given to him by the Chief of the Police and the Information Service, declared the applicant to be a prohibited immigrant under powers vested in him by section 6 of Cap. 105 and, also,ordered hisdeportation undertheprovisions envisaged by section 14of the same Law. 25 Asa result of the decision taken by the Minister, he authorised the Director-General of his Ministry to sign a deportation order and the detention of theapplicant pending his deportation. The applicant isnot a citizen of the Republic,but according to Mr.Jonathan KellyDieter, who hassworn the affidavit insupport 30 of the application, the applicant is a Kurd from Turkey; that he came to the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus in 1976 and that being unsatisfied there he defected to the free area of the Republic;thathewasthenarrestedandafterbeingkeptincustody hewassentbackfromwhere hecame.However, heagain,onthe .15 15thOctober, 1986,managed todefecttothissideoftheRepublic 272 1C U R . I n reUckac Demetriades Λ. and after being kept for five monthsindetentionhe was released and moved toLimassol where he found work. 5 On the26th March,1988, the applicantwas arrested and since detained as a result of being declared an undesirable immigrant and of the order for hisdeportation. Counsel for the applicant argued thathis detentionis illegalin that itoffends Article 11 of theConstitution. By Article 32 of theConstitution,the Republic isgiven the right to regulate, by means of laws, any matter relating to aliens in 10 accordance with International Law and Article 11 which the applicantallegesthatitsprovisions have been violated, provides: «1.Every person hastherighttoliberty andsecurity of person.
- No person shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases when andas provided by law:15 (a)the detentionof a person after conviction by acompetent court; (b)thearrestordetentionofaperson fornon-compliancewith thelawful orderof a court; 20 25 (c)thearrestordetentionof aperson effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committingan offence or fleeing after having done so; (d)the detentionof a minorby a lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purposeofbringing himbefore thecompetentlegalauthority; (e) the detentionof persons for theprevention of spreading of infectious diseases, ofpersonsofunsoundmind,alcoholicsor drug addicts or vagrants; 30 35 (f) the arrest or detentionof aperson toprevent him effecting an unauthorised entry intothe territory of the Republic or of an alien against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
- Save when and as provided by law in case of a flagrant offence punishable with death or imprisonment, no person shall be arrested save under the authority of a reasoned 273 DemetriadesJ . Inre Uckac
(1988)judicial warrant issued accordingtothe formalities prescribed bythe law. Cap. 105which is the Law that regulates matters relating to aliens is not attacked by the applicant. What, however, he 5 submitted through his counsel isthat the Republic has norightto detain him after the Minister of Interior declared him an undesirable immigrantandanorderforhisdeportation wasmade. It was further submitted that the detention of the applicant for a long period, that is as from the 26th March, 1988, was an 10 unreasonable one. As regards the first submission, the Republic relies on Article 11
(2)(f) of the Constitution theprovisions of which appear earlier in my judgment. Itisinternationally accepted thateveryStateexercisesterritorial 15 supremacy over all persons op its territory, whether they are its subjects oraliensand thereisnoobligationbyittoacceptan alien. When an alien enters into a state he falls under the territotial supremacy of that State, he is under its jurisdiction and is responsible to itfor allacts hecommits on itsterritory. 20 The right of States to expel aliens isrecognized internationally and this applies whether the alien isonly on a temporary visit or has even settled down for professional or business purposes on the territory of the State havingtaken hisdomicile thereon. (See Oppenheim's International Law 8th ed. Vol. 1, Chapters 25 VI,VIIandVIII). Relevanttothe issueoftherightsoftheRepublicwithregard to aliens is the case of Karaliotasv. The Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1701. The provisions of Article ll
(2)(f) of our Constitution, in my 30 view, are clear and unambiguous and they give the right to the Republic, once an alien isdeclared an undesirable immigrant and an order for hisdeportation ismade,todetain himforsuch period asitisnecessary for arrangementstobemadeforhisdeportation. This philosophy hasbeen followed bythe interpretation given to 35 Article 5of the European Convention on Human Rightsto which Cyprus isa signatory and which has been ratified by Law 39/62 (seeJacobs: TheEuropean Convention onHuman Rights, 1975 274 1 C.L.R. I n r e Uckac Demetriades J . at pp. 46, 49, 50 and Fawcett: TheApplication of the European Convention, 1969,atpp.86,87). In the result, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 Applicant' s detention to continue till arrangements are made forhis deportation. Before concluding, however, Iwould like to point out to the authorities that in every European country persons detained for reasons similar tothe one for which the Republic seeksto deport 10 the applicant are neither kept in Police cells or in prisons but in special places which are under the control of the Immigration Authorities. However, since no such places existin Cyprus, Iam forced to make an order that the applicant is detained in the Central Prisons untilarrangements are made forhis deportation. 15 Inthe circumstances,there willbe no order asto costs. Application dismissed. No order astocosts. 275