Newsroom
A legal question most people in Cyprus may never have considered, whether an order issued by a British Bases court can be enforced just a few kilometres away in the Republic, has moved to the center of the Xylofagou case involving the deaths of two young brothers.
The lawyer representing the children’s father has written to the Attorney General, asking for an official explanation of how the two separate legal systems are supposed to cooperate.
The move followed a decision by the Sovereign Base Areas Court to reject the father’s request for bail. The court also turned down his request to travel to Bulgaria to accompany the bodies of his two sons and attend their funeral.
The two boys were found dead inside their father’s vehicle in Xylofagou on June 28. Their father remains in custody and faces a charge of causing death through a reckless and thoughtless act, an offense punishable by up to four years in prison.
His lawyer, Christos Theodoulou, said the defense respects the court and its reasoning. However, he argued that the decision has brought a much larger institutional problem to the surface.
According to the defense, one reason bail was refused was that the court was not satisfied there was a practical and enforceable way to ensure that bail conditions imposed by a Sovereign Base Areas court would be followed within the Republic of Cyprus.
Put simply, the concern is what happens once a person crosses from one jurisdiction into the other.
For the average resident, the boundary between the Bases and the Republic can often feel almost invisible. People drive through it, work across it, and move between the two areas as part of everyday life. Legally, however, the Xylofagou case suggests that crossing that boundary may be far more complicated.
The defense described the matter as one of “broader institutional importance and public interest,” arguing that it goes well beyond the circumstances of this particular defendant.
Theodoulou also referred to testimony given by a prosecution witness during the bail proceedings. According to the defense, the testimony indicated that no request for cooperation or assistance had first been made to the authorities of the Republic.
The witness also reportedly referred to a number of arrest warrants issued by Sovereign Base Areas courts that remain unexecuted because, according to the defense’s account of the testimony, the Republic does not have specific legislation allowing such warrants to be enforced.
At the same time, the lawyer noted that the Sovereign Base Areas have enacted legislation dealing with the transfer and removal of people to the Republic.
The defense has now asked the Attorney General’s Office to clarify the institutional and legal framework governing cooperation between the two jurisdictions.
It is also studying the court’s written decision and considering its next steps, including an appeal or a fresh bail application.
The father is due to return to court on Sept. 22, when he is expected to enter a plea to the charge against him.
