Citizens have filed complaints with the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints Against the Police (IAIACP) over the forceful police response during a peaceful demonstration in support of Palestinians and Gaza, held outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 October 2025. Video footage widely circulated on social media showed police using batons and pepper spray to disperse protesters.
The incident sparked widespread public debate in the following days, particularly over the new Law on Public Gatherings and Demonstrations (2025), passed by Parliament on 10 July. The legislation was supported by DISY, DIKO, EDEK, DIPA, and ELAM. It was opposed by AKEL, the Green Party, and MPs Kostis Efstathiou and Andreas Themistocleous. During intense discussions about the protest, MPs from parties that supported the law often referred critics and journalists to the IAIACP, arguing that responsibility for the incident should only be determined after the Authority’s investigation, which could take years.
Attorney General has final say
The IAIACP was established under the 2006 Police Law (Law 9(I)/2006) to align Cyprus with EU standards on rule of law and human rights. However, the Authority's ability to act independently is under question.
In an interview with Politis, lawyer Elias Christou, a former criminal investigator for the Authority, highlighted its main weaknesses: delays, conflicts of interest, and limited powers. One of the core issues, he noted, is that the final decision on whether to proceed with a criminal prosecution lies solely with the Attorney General, who is constitutionally protected from judicial review in this regard (Article 113.2 of the Constitution). This severely restricts the Authority's independence in pursuing criminal cases.
Who investigates the police?
Investigations are conducted either by the Authority's members or by individuals it appoints as investigators. The law does not explicitly prohibit former police officers from being appointed, although the spirit of the legislation is to ensure independent investigations.
Are these investigators qualified? Typically, they are legal professionals and are expected to be trained in human rights, ethics, and investigative techniques. However, Christou noted that while some training is offered - often by Cyprus Police officers - more comprehensive and ongoing education is urgently needed.
Conflict of interest risks
Due to funding limitations, the IAIACP often outsources investigations to private lawyers or law firms. This arrangement, while necessary, raises potential conflicts of interest. To safeguard integrity, appointments must be transparent and limited to individuals with proven independence and no current or past ties to the police or the subjects of investigations.
Reports shelved
A major criticism of the IAIACP is its lack of prosecutorial powers. Unlike bodies such as the Cyprus Council of Real Estate Agents or local municipalities, which can prosecute violations in court, the IAIACP can only recommend prosecutions. These recommendations go to the Attorney General, who may choose to ignore them.
As a result, many of the Authority’s reports costing taxpayers thousands of euros, end up shelved. In fact, it is common for the Attorney General to disagree with the Authority’s findings.
Delays and justice denied
The pace of investigations is another major issue. The IAIACP often faces significant delays due to a high volume of cases, legal complexity, and insufficient permanent staff. Even when cases are referred to court, it can take years for a final ruling to be issued.
Despite a costly and much-publicised judicial reform process, Christou notes that criminal proceedings remain painfully slow, citing the “Yiannakis case” as an example, which took nearly four years to complete, during which time the accused continued to draw a (reduced) salary.
Christou admitted that investigating police misconduct can be risky and that the current legal framework offers no real protection to investigators. He recalled moments of personal insecurity, although these were limited.
What needs to change?
To improve its effectiveness, the IAIACP needs both internal reforms and legislative amendments:
-
Appointment of permanent, independent, and properly trained investigators.
-
Legislative reform to give the Authority power to file criminal charges without needing approval from the Attorney General.
-
A legal requirement for the full communication of investigation findings to complainants, with exceptions for privacy or confidentiality, to increase transparency and accountability.
Ultimately, the Authority must be transformed into a fast, effective, and fully independent mechanism for holding the police accountable.
President Christodoulides has not met the authority
Investigations by the IAIACP begin with a complaint from a citizen alleging police misconduct, whether it violates the penal code, police regulations, or any other applicable law. The Authority consists of five members (a chair, vice-chair, and three members) appointed by the Council of Ministers for five-year terms.
Strangely, the Authority’s official website lists only four members, although a fifth was appointed in late 2023 following a resignation. Furthermore, its annual reports are only published up to 2019. According to the Authority, reports up to 2024 have been completed and are awaiting a date to be formally presented by the Council of Ministers.
Notably, President Christodoulides has yet to meet with the Authority’s five members, despite repeated requests over the past two and a half years.
The numbers
As of 2025, 270 complaints have been filed, of which only 70 are under investigation. In 2024, 358 complaints were submitted, with criminal investigators appointed in 140 cases, resulting in just one disciplinary and three criminal prosecution recommendations.
In 2023, 342 complaints were filed, 137 investigators were appointed, and only seven disciplinary and one criminalcase were recommended.
The Authority’s 2025 annual budget stands at €415,000.
'Filtering' complaints
Each complaint goes through a multi-stage review before being deemed serious enough for investigation. First, IAIACP members screen out baseless claims. Next, the police provide their perspective. Only then - if the case survives both stages - is a criminal investigator appointed.
However, allegations involving physical violence (even a push) automatically trigger an investigation.
Unlike the Anti-Corruption Authority, the IAIACP conducts its own investigations and does not refer cases back to the police. Investigators submit their reports to the Authority, which then decides whether to recommend disciplinary or criminal action. Criminal cases go to the Attorney General, while disciplinary cases are referred to the Chief of Police. The Authority may accept or reject an investigator’s report.
Modernisation on hold
Finally, for the past 3-4 years, the IAIACP has been requesting modernisation, including the appointment of permanent investigators. Currently, delays are significant because private lawyers acting as criminal investigators juggle other professional commitments. As a result, many offences expire due to delays, and conflicts of interest remain a real concern, especially since some investigators are former police officers with law degrees.
Last week, the Authority was informed that the long-awaited bill to reform its operations is finally heading to Parliament.