Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights for Turkey's invasion in Cyprus

[Ptolemy]

1st Report of the European Commission of Human Rights Turkey's invasion in Cyprus and aftermath (20 JULY 1974 - 18 MAY 1976)

Part of the Introduction
After overruling Turkey's objection the Commission of Human Rights considered: "the evidence before the Commission and the facts established on the basis of this evidence cannot be seen as presenting a view of the events and incidents complained of mainly from the Greek Cypriot side. The Commission observes in this connection that: - certain events and incidents referred to in the applications are in great part a matter of public knowledge. In particular, the massive movement of population from the northern to the southern part of Cyprus after 20 July,1974 is an indisputable fact which, as such, calls for no particular investigation; the Commission has based its findings in part on reports of other international organizations, in particular the United Nations; - the witnesses heard by the Commission's Delegation in Cyprus testified, with little exception, with a restraint and objectivity that gave credibility to their testimony; some of them confirmed a number of statements in the Particulars of the Applications about which they could not have had any direct knowledge; - in the evaluation of the evidence before it, the Commission has refrained from drawing any conclusions from the fact that the respondent Government, despite every opportunity being offered to them, failed to make any statements, or to proposed counterevidence on the applicant Government's allegations". (Report, p.31)


Here are the Contents: Killings
Displacement of persons (Creating refugees)
Deprivation of liberty
Mass rapes
Torture & inhuman treatment
Deprivation of possessions, looting and wanton destruction
Discrimination
No remedy


Killings
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
" Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally." (Article 2)
Charge laid against Turkey:
The Turkish Army embarked upon a systematic course of mass murders of civilians unconnected with any war activity, including women and babies in arms, and soldiers who had surrendered.

Turkish defense:

No answer was given to these charges. Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's verdict:

By 14 votes to 1 the Commission, after examining a number of killings at specific places, held that the evidence before it constituted "strong indications of killings committed on a substantial scale" (para.346). The Commission concluded: " In view of the very detailed material before it on other killings alleged by the applicant Government, the Commission, by fourteen votes against one, concludes from the whole evidence that killings happened on a larger scale than in Elia. There is nothing to show that any of these deprivations of life were justified... " (Report, p.165)
Further relevant facts:
Greek National Guardsmen and civilians were killed in the field and in bombing raids on civilian targets, including hospitals. In these raids the Turkish Air Force used napalm. These killings were not the subject of the application to the European Commission on Human Rights, being rather breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

[Go back to Contents]


Displacement of persons (Creating refugees)
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
" Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life and his home..." (Article 8)
Charge laid against Turkey:
The Turkish Army displaced 200,000 Greek Cypriots (more than one third of the population) from their homes. This was effected partly by physical expulsion and partly by a systematic campaign of terror, causing Greek Cypriots to flee in the face of Turkey's advancing armed forces. Refugees and expellees were not permitted by the Turkish Army to return to their homes in the Turkish occupied area.

Turkish defense:

No answer was given to these charges. Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's Verdict:

" Displacement of persons:

1. The Commission concludes by thirteen votes against one that, by the refusal to allow the return of more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus, Turkey violated, and was continuing to violate Art. 8 of the Convention in all these cases. When hostilities ended some Greek Cypriots were able to return to their homes near the cease-fire lines in areas under UN or Government control thus reducing the number of refugees to 170,000.
2. The Commission concludes by twelve votes against one that, by the eviction of Greek Cypriots from houses, including their homes, by their transportation to other places within the north of Cyprus, or by their deportation across the demarcation line, Turkey has equally violated Art. 8 of the Convention.
3. The Commission concludes by thirteen votes against one that by the refusal to allow the return to their homes in the north of Cyprus of several thousand Greek Cypriots who had been transferred to the south under inter-communal agreements, Turkey violated, and was continuing to violate Art. 8 of the Convention in all these cases.
4. The Commission concludes by fourteen votes against one with one abstention that, by the separation of Greek Cypriot families brought about by measures of displacement in a substantial number of cases, Turkey has again violated Art.8 of the Convention." (Report, p.163).
[Go back to Contents]

Deprivation of liberty
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
" No one shall be deprived of his liberty.." (Article 5)
Charge laid against Turkey:
The Turkish armed forces detained thousands of persons arbitrarily and without lawful authority. On entering any inhabited area they immediately rounded up all Greek Cypriot inhabitants (many women & children were hiding in their homes). On capture men were separated and detained apart from old people, women and children, who were either put in "concentration camps" or expelled. On the hundreds kept in such camps small babies to old people of 90 were crowded together under atrocious conditions without sanitary facilities at the height of summertime, when temperatures reach over 40 o C. The worst such "concentration camps" were Voni, Marathovouno, Vitsada and Gypsou. In addition, Turkish authorities held some 3,000 inhabitants of the Kyrenia district in the Kyrenia Dome Hotel & in Bellapais village. Many male Greek Cypriots were temporarily sent as "prisoners of war" to places like Saray Prison & Pavlides Garage in the Turkish part of Nicosia, later being transported to Turkey and detained in prisons in Adana, Amasia and Atiama. It is notable that the great majority of those shipped to Turkey were civilians of all ages between 17 and 70. Article 49.1 of the Geneva Convention, 1949, Fourth Schedule, provides that: "individual or mass forcible transfers,as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not are prohibited, regardless of their motive." The transfer of civilians to Turkey show the contempt exhibited by the Turkish Army for the principles of international law. Turkey has never provided complete lists of detainees and the fate of about 3,000 Greek Cypriots was unknown at the time of the first applications to the Commission. Because evidence showed numbers of these missing persons had been in custody in Turkey the Commission was asked to investigate whether they were still imprisoned there.

Turkish defense:

No answer was given to these charges. Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's Verdict:

" Detention centers:

1. The Commission,by thirteen votes against one, concludes that, by the confinement of more than two thousand Greek Cypriots to detention centres established in schools and churches at Voni, Gypsou and Morphou, Turkey has violated Art.5(1) of the Convention.
2. The Commission by thirteen votes against one, further concludes that, by the confinement of Greek Cypriots to private houses in Gypsou and Morphou, where they kept under similar circumstances as in the detention centres, Turkey has equally violated Art.5(1).
3. The Commission, by ten votes against two with two abstentions, finally concludes that, by the CONFINEMENT of Greek Cypriots to the Kyrenia Dome Hotel after 14 August 1974, Turkey has again violated Art.5(1).
Prisoners and detainees:
1. The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, concludes that the detention of Greek Cypriot military personnel in Turkey was not in conformity with Art.5(1) of the Convention.
2. The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, concluded that the DETENTION of Greek Cypriot civilians IN Turkey was equally not in conformity with Art.5.(1)" (Report, p.164). Evidence on missing persons: The evidence before the Commission does not allow a definite finding with regard to the fate of Greek Cypriots declared to be missing. This is partly due to the fact that the Commission's Delegation was refused access to the northern/occupied/part of Cyprus and to places in Turkey where Greek Cypriot prisoners were or had been detained. In the present Report the Commission is only concerned with the fate of persons declared to be missing as from the beginning of the military action of Turkey on 20 July 1974. It is not concerned with any person missing due to the coup d'etat which on 15 July 1974 preceded the above action... It appears, however, from the evidence that: it is widely accepted that "a considerable number of Cypriots" are still " missing as a result of armed conflict in Cyprus" i.e. between Turkey and Cyprus; a number of persons declared to be missing have been identified as Greek Cypriots taken prisoner by the Turkish army. The Commission considers that there is a presumption of Turkish responsibility for the fate of persons shown to have been in Turkish custody. However,on the basis of the material before it, the Commission has been unable to ascertain whether, and under what circumstances, Greek Cypriot prisoners declared to be missing have been deprived of their life" (Report, paras. 347-349, and 351)
[Go back to Contents]

[Ptolemy]

Mass rapes

Relevant Article of the European Convention an Human Rights:
" No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment..." (Article 3)

Charge laid against Turkey:
Turkish troops were responsible for wholesale and repeated rapes of women of ALL AGES from 12 to 71, sometimes to such an extent that the victims suffered haemorrages or became mental wrecks. In some areas, enforced prostitution was practiced, all women and girls of a village been collected and put into separate rooms in empty houses where they were raped repeatedly. In certain cases members of the same family were repeatedly raped, some of them in front of their own children. In other cases women were brutally raped in public. Rapes were on many occasions accompanied by brutalities such as violent biting of the victims causing severe wounding, banging their heads on the floor and wringing their throats almost to the point OF suffocation. In some cases attempts at rape were followed by the stabbing or killing of the victims. Victims included pregnant and mentally retarted women.

Turkey's defense:

No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's verdict:

" The evidence shows that rapes were committed by Turkish soldiers and at least in two cases even by Turkish officers, and this NOT ONLY in some isolated cases of indiscipline. It has not been shown that the Turkish authorities took adequate measures to prevent this happening or that they generally took any disciplinary measures following such incidents. The Commission therefore considers that the non-prevention of the said acts is imputable to Turkey under the Convention.
The Commission, by 12 Votes against one, finds that the incidents of rape described in the above cases and regarded as established constitute "inhuman treatment" in the sense of Art.3 of the Convention, which is imputable to Turkey" (Report, paras. 373-4)
[Go back to Contents]

Torture and inhuman treatment

Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
" No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment..." (Article 3)
Charges laid against Turkey:
Hundreds of persons, including children, women and elderly people, were the victims of systematic torture and SAVAGE and humiliating treatment during their detention by the Turkish army. They were beaten; sometimes to the extent of being incapacitated. Many were subjected to tortures such as whipping, breaking of the teeth, knocking their heads on the wall, beating with electrified clubs, extinction of cigarettes on their skin, jumping and stepping on their chest and hands, pouring dirty liquids on them, piercing them with bayonets etc. Many of these detainees were ill-treated to such an extent that they became mental and physical wrecks. Among the persons so treated were those deported to and imprisoned in Turkey (of whom most were civilians). During their transportation and detention they were savagely ill-treated, being wounded, beaten, kicked, whipped, blindfolded, handfettered punched to the extent of bleeding, etc. These brutalities reached their climax after the cease fire agreements and resolutions of the U. N. Security Council calling for an end to hostilities. In fact most of these acts were committed when Turkish armed forces were not engaged in any war activities. More than 1,000 statements obtained from witnesses described their ill-treatment. Such statements showed a pattern of behaviour by the Turkish forces, proving that the atrocities were deliberate tactics which the invading forces were to follow. The aim was to terrorise, destroy and eradicate the Greek population of the Turkish occupied area so that it would be vacant to move in Turks, thus creating an area populated virtually only by Turks.

Turkey's defense:

No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's verdict:

" The Commission by twelve votes against one,concludes that prisoners were in a number of cases physically ill-treated by injuries and at least in one case the death of the victim. By their severity they constitute "inhuman treatment" and thus violations of Art.3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention.
The Commission by twelve votes against one, concluded that the withholding of an adequate supply of food and drinking water and of adequate medical treatment from Greek Cypriot prisoners held at Adana and detainees in the northern area of Cyprus, with the exception of Pavlides Garage & Saray prison, again constitutes, in the cases considered as established and in the conditions described, "inhuman treatment" and thus a violation of Art.3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention" (Report, pp.165-166) The Commission did not find sufficient evidence that prisoners held in these two locations in the Turkish sector of Nicosia were guarded by Turkish soldiers - as opposed to Turkish-officered Turkish Cypriot "forces" (para. 308)
"The evidence obtained established that, in a considerable number of cases prisoners were severely beaten or otherwise physically ill-treated by Turkish soldiers" (Report, para.393) The Commission, by twelve votes against one,concludes that the written statements submitted by the applicant Government constitute indications of ill-treatment by Turkish soldiers of persons not in detention" (Report, p.166)
[Go back to Contents]

Deprivation of possessions, looting and wanton destruction
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions..." (Article 1 of Protocol No.1)

Charge laid against Turkey:
Greek Cypriots were deprived of their possessions either by eviction or by seizure of movable property and its subsequent removal by Turkish soldiers, or by conditions making abandonment of home and property the only wise course as life and limb were at risk from the Turkish army. When privately owned land & houses belonging to Greek Cypriots in the Turkish occupied areas came under Turkey's control,most of this was distributed to Turkish Cypriots and to Turks brought from Turkey to settle in those areas. To preclude any Greek Cypriots from reclaiming their possessions,Turkish authorities forcibly prevented their return and continued to expel most remaining Greek Cypriots. In various official statements the Turkish Government made it clear that Turkey was organizing marketing of all agricultural production in the occupied area. The same applied to tourism and Turkey took over all Greek Cypriot manufacturing industry. Goods already manufactured & agricultural produce ready for marketing were shipped abroad in Turkish vessels. In addition, the Turkish Army systematically looted houses and business premises belonging to Greek Cypriots. Even properties of those Greek Cypriots who had remained in the Turkish occupied army part not escape this fate. Most loot was loaded into Turkish army vehicles & buses seized from Greek Cypriots, and a substantial part, including vehicles, animals, household goods,and building equipment, was transported by Turkish naval vessels to the mainland. The Turkish Army also engaged in wanton destruction. Turkish soldiers attempted to burn down all buildings along "the green line" in Nicosia, and orchards and crops belonging to Greek Cypriots were set on fire after cessation of hostilities. Witnesses also described breaking of doors and windows of houses, the smashing of furniture icons, candles and other church property and killing of animals. The destruction of Christian & Hellenic monuments was a significant feature of Turkey's occupation. Religious property was a particular target in an attempt to destroy the cultural identity of the occupied area. Not only were religious items & church equipment smashed, set on fire or looted, but most Greek Orthodox churches not converted into mosques were vandalized. Mosaics and even frescos were either defaced or removed. This occurred in military zones under control of the Turkish Army and from which Turkish Cypriots were excluded. Even archaeological museums and sites did not escape vandalisation and initial looting.

Turkey's defense:

No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.

Commission's verdict:

"The Commission accepted that the 170,000 Greek Cypriots displaced from the occupied area had left behind their movable & immovable possessions and referred to "the established fact that these displaced persons are allowed to return to their homes in the north, and thus to property left there" (Report para.471)
The Commission went on to find "proof of taking and occupation of houses and land by Turkish Cypriots and Turks from the mainland, both military personnel and civilians" (Report para. 472) Moreover the Commission accepted " testimony as proving beyond reasonable doubt that looting and robbery on an extensive scale by Turkish troops and Turkish Cypriots have taken place... As regards such deprivations of possessions by Turkish Cypriots, the Commission considers that, insofar as the persons committing them were acting under the direct order or authority of the Turkish forces of which there is evidence, the deprivation must equally be imputed to Turkey under the Convention..."
The Commission, by 12 votes against one, finds it established that there has been deprivation of possesions of Greek Cypriots on a large scale, the exact extent of which could not be determined. This deprivation must be imputed to Turkey under the Convention and it has not been shown that any of these interferences were necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 1 of Protocol No.1" (Report, paras 472-486)
[Go back to Contents]

Discrimination
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such... as race, ... language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority... or other status" (Article 14)
Charge laid against Turkey:
The acts of the Turkish Army were exclusively directed against the Greek Cypriot community with the object of destroying and, eradicating the Greek population of the Turkish occupied area so as to move therein Turks, thereby artificially creating a Turkish populated area. All Turkey's atrocities were directed against Greek Cypriots (though some foreign subjects who happened to be or have property in the Turkish occupied area were also affected by some such acts e.g. looting and wanton destruction of property).

Turkish defense:

No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commissions proceedings once her jurisdictional objection had been rejected.

Commission's Verdict:

" The Commission has found violations of a number of Articles of the Convention. It notes that the acts violating the Convention were exclusively directed against members of one of the two communities in Cyprus, namely the Greek Cypriot community. The Commission concludes by eleven votes to three that Turkey has thus failed to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in these Articles without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, race and religion as required by Art.14 of the Convention (Report, para. 503)
[Go back to Contents]

No remedy
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
" Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy..." (Article 13)
Charge laid against Turkey:
None of the victims of the ruthless and evil deeds by Turkish State organs and her Armed Forces was ever given any opportunity to vindicate his rights before an authority or tribunal as provided by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Persons under Turkish control were not even permitted to talk without Turkish supervision to the International Red Cross. In short, no effective remedy of any kind was afforded either in the Turkish occupied area or in Turkey itself in respect of Turkish atrocities.

Turkish defense:

In its jurisdictional objection, Turkey argued that remedies were availale before the competent judicial authorities in Turkey or before the military courts of the Turkish forces in Cyprus.

Commission's findings:

The Commission held that such remedies had not been shown to be "practicable and normally functioning". Nor had it been established that such complaints could be effectively handled. (Admissibility Report, at p. 22 of the Report). The Commission at the hearing on the merits reiterated that it had found no evidence that effective and suficient remedies were available. (Report, paras. 499-501)

[Ptolemy]

2nd Report of the European Commission of Human Rights Turkey's invasion in Cyprus and aftermath (19 MAY 1976 -to 10 February 1083)

New population expulsions, Turkish colonization, aggravated and continuing violations

Turkey's violations of the convention
Cyprus, as a state concerned in proceedings under the Convention is not at liberty to publish any Report by the Commission on the merits (final factual findings) until such time as the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decides on publication. Accordingly, final factual findings, if any, by the Commission cannot be set out here. Nonetheless Cyprus charges against Turkey can be disclosed as these were published in October 1978 by the Commission after it had declared Cyprus' application admissible, i.e. that it would fully investigate and that Turkey had to answer a prima facie case made out by Cyprus.

Turkey's Objections

Turkey, as in the earlier applications, raised every conceivable technical objection to the Commission's jurisdiction. In particular it claimed that no application could be considered because:

-Turkey did not recognize the government of Cyprus

Commissions ruling:

The Government of the Republic was internationally recognized, but in any event to allow Turkey to avoid enforcement of the Convention "by asserting that they do not recognize the Government..would defeat the purpose of the Convention" (Admissibility Report, The Law, para. 13).
-Turkey had no control over the occupied area which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of a "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus".
Commission's Ruling:

Turkey's jurisdiction in Cyprus could not be excluded by asserting that such an entity "allegedly exercised jurisdiction". It was the presence of Turkish Armed Forces, operating solely under direction of the Turkish Government and acting as "authorized agents of Turkey", which prevented the Government of the Republic of Cyprus from exercising jurisdiction in the occupied area, and Turkey was responsible for her Army's actions (Ibid., paras. 23-25).
Further proceedings:
In November 1983 the Commission announced that it had adopted its Report. According to Article 31.1 of the Convention this Report would have been

"on the facts and stating its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention".

The substance underlying the proceedings n Cyprus vs. Turkey (Third Application).



Here are the Contents: Missing persons
Displacement of persons and separation of families
Deprivation of possessions
Discrimination
No remedies
Deprivation of liberty
Deprivation of life
Ill-treatment
Forced labor



Missing persons

Relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty..." (Article 5)
"Everyone has the right to respect for his ...family life..." (Article 8)
Charge laid against Turkey:
About 2,000 Greek Cypriots, a considerable number being civilians, are still missing. They were last seen alive in the occupied area of Cyprus after hostilities had ceased and under arrest by the Turkish army or armed Turks acting under its direction. Many had been seen in detention in prisons in Turkey or in Cyprus. Turkey nonetheless continued to prevent any investigation by international Committee of the Red Cross. For 9 years, Turkey through her puppet regime, declined to act on 5 UN General Assembly Resolutions which sought to activate a humanitarian Committee on Missing Persons to investigate the fate of all Cypriots missing as a result of the invasion. In response there was prevarication, refusal to co-operate and addition of new and obstructive conditions.

Fresh evidence about some of the missing persons last seen alive in Turkish detention revealed that some were in Adana and Amasia prisons in Turkey. others had been photographed after their surrender or in Turkish ships on their way to Turkey. Yet others had been heard on Turkish radio, broadcasting messages to their families. In the absence of proof that the missing persons had been killed or had died, Turkey was responsible for continuing deprivation of liberty of all those persons shown to have been in her custody.

Grace infringement of family rights had also occurred. Families suffered severely, being uncertain whether their loved ones were alive or dead because no account had been given of the fate of those who had disappeared although in Turkish custody.

Turkey's defense:

Turkey was not represented at the oral hearing after the Commission's dismissal of her jurisdictional objections, which included the objection that more than six months had passed since it was known that 2,000 Greek Cypriots were missing.

Commission's verdict:

The Commission, having found it established in three cases, and having found sufficient indications in an indefinite number of cases, that Greek Cypriots who are still missing were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, in Turkish custody in 1974, noting that Turkey has failed to account for the fate of these persons, concludes by 16 votes against one that Turkey has violated Article 5 of the Convention.
[Go back to Contents]

[Ptolemy]

Displacement of persons and separation of families

Relevant article of the European Convention of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". (Article 8)

Charge laid against Turkey:
The Turkish army sealed off the demarcation line running across the island and known as the green line in Nicosia. They physically prevented about 190,000 displaced Greek Cypriots (now including children born as refugees) from returning to their homes, and continued this policy without remission for a decade, thus aggravating earlier Turkish violations of refugees' rights for which the Commission had as long ago as 1976 condemned Turkey.

Turkey's continuing failure to allow families who had fled across the line to be reunited with their remaining relatives in the occupied area was an aggravating factor.

Condition for the 8,000 Greek Cypriots who remained in the occupied area in 1976 (mainly in Karpasia) were so harsh that between 1976 and 1979, about 7,000 were forced to sign applications to leave after suffering violence, threats, curfews, looting, forced labor, refusal of medical facilities and denial of secondary education. Most of the violence and harassment was effected through Anatolian settlers. Those Greek Cypriots who remained in the occupied area were often separated from their children: in order to receive an adequate education, children had to be sent in the free area and were not permitted by Turkey to return unless they formally acknowledged Turkish jurisdiction over Cyprus.

Turkey's defense:

At the admissibility stage, Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings -in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at the oral hearing in March 1983.

Commission's verdict:

The Commission concludes by thirteen votes against one that, by the refusal to allow the return of more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north Cyprus, Turkey violated and was continuing to violate Article 8 of the Convention in all these cases.
The Commission concludes by twelve votes against one that, by the eviction of Greek Cypriots from houses, including their own homes, by their transportation to other places within the north of Cyprus, or by the deportation across the demarcation line, Turkey has equally violates Article 8 of the Convention.
The Commission concludes by thirteen votes against one that, by the refusal to allow the return to their homes in the north of Cyprus to several thousand Greek Cypriots who had been transferred to the south under inter-communal agreements, Turkey violated, and was continuing to violate Article 8 of the Convention in all these cases.
The Commission concludes by fourteen votes against one with one abstention that, by the separation of Greek Cypriot families brought about by measures of displacement in a substantial number of cases, Turkey has again violated Article 8 of the Convention.
[Go back to Contents]

[Ptolemy]

Deprivation of possessions

Relevant article of the European Convention of Human Rights:
"Every natural person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of the possession. No one shall be deprived of his possessions..." (Protocol No. 1 Article 1)

Charge laid against Turkey:
The Greek Cypriot refugees who had been driven from their homes or had fled at the time of Turkey's invasion or soon thereafter continued to be deprived of their property by the Turkish Armed Forces' refusal to allow them to return. Under Turkey's direction there was now a consolidation of informal seizures. The Turkish Cypriot puppet authorities purported in 1977 to pass a so-called "Law to Provide for the Housing and Distribution of Land and Property of Equal Value" and amended this in 1982 to give semi-permanent definitive certificates of possession to Turkish settlers (including soldiers of the occupation force) and Turkish Cypriots who had been handed Greek Cypriots property.

Wholly new deprivations occurred in respect of the 7,000 Greek Cypriots (mainly from the Karpass) who, under duress, were compelled to leave their homes and possessions and to move to the free area.

More wanton destruction of cultural objects, especially of Greek Orthodox churches and religious treasures, also occurred. Remaining antiquities were discovered to be "saleable" and found their way via Turkish hands to international dealers. Turkish Cypriots wrote about destruction, pillage, theft, smuggling, and plunder.

Turkey's defense:

At the admissibility stage, Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings -in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at the oral hearing in March 1983.

Commission's verdict:

The Commission by twelve votes against one, finds it established that there has been deprivation of possessions of Greek Cypriots on a large scale, the exact extent of which could not be determined. This deprivation must be imputed to Turkey under the Convention and it has not been shown that any of these interferences were necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 1 of Protocol 1. The Commission concludes that this provision has been violated by Turkey.
[Go back to Contents]


Discrimination

Relevant article of the European Convention of Human Rights:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race... religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority... or other status". (Article 14)
Charge laid against Turkey:
Most of Turkey's violations were directed against members of one community only, namely the Greek Cypriot community, because of their ethnic origin, race and religion. Turkey's aim was to eliminate all traces of Greek civilization and to set up a demographically homogeneous ethnically Turkish and Muslim state in the occupied area. In another context this would be condemned as apartheid or cultural genocide.

Turkey's defense:

At the admissibility stage, Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings -in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at the oral hearing in March 1983.

Commission's verdict:

Having found violations of a number of Articles of the Convention, the Commission notes that the acts violating the Convention were exclusively directed against members of one of two communities in Cyprus, namely the Greek Cypriot community. It concludes by eleven votes to three that Turkey has thus failed to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in these Articles without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, race, religion as required by Article 14 of the Convention.
[Go back to Contents]


No remedies

Relevant article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Everyone whose rights and freedom... are violated shall have an effective remedy..." (Article 13)
Charge laid against Turkey:
In respect of new and continuing violations from May 1976 onwards no effective remedy was provided by Turkey, whether in her own courts or those of the area she occupied. Indeed, in the occupied area Turk's puppet regime had purported to enact "Constitution", depriving Greek Cypriots of virtually all human rights and conferring "constitutional protection" in respect of many rights only on Turks.

Turkey's defense:

At the admissibility stage, Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings -in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at the oral hearing in March 1983.

Commission's verdict:

The Commission by thirteen votes against one and with two abstentions, has found no evidence that effective remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, were in fact available.

[Ptolemy]

Deprivation of liberty

1. Enclaved persons

The Commission, by eight votes against five and with two abstentions, concludes that the curfew imposed at night on enclaved Greek Cypriots in the north Cyprus, while a restriction of liberty, is not a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention.
The Commission, by twelve votes against two abstentions, further concludes that the alleged restrictions of movement outside the built-up area of villages in the north Cyprus would fall within the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, not ratifiedby either Cyprus or Turkey, rather within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. It is therefore unable to find a violation of Article 5 insofar as the restrictions imposed on Greek Cypriots in order to prevent them from moving freely outside villages in the north of Cyprus are imputable to Turkey.
2. Detention centers
The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, concludes that, by the confinement of more than two thousand Greek Cypriots to detention centers established in schools and churches at Voni, Gypsou and Morphou, Turkey has violated Article 5(1) of the Convention.
The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, further concludes that, by the confinement of Greek Cypriots to private houses in Gypsou and Morphou, where they were kept under similar circumstances as in the detention centers, Turkey has equally violated Article 5(1).
The Commission, by ten votes against two with two abstentions, finally concludes that, by the confinement of Greek Cypriots to the Kyrenia Dome Hotel after 14 August 1974, Turkey has violated Article 5(1).
3. Prisoners and detainees
The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, concludes that the detention of Greek Cypriot military personnel in Turkey was not in conformity with Article 5(1) of the Convention.
The Commission, by thirteen votes against one, concludes that the detention of Greek Cypriot civilians in Turkey was equally not in conformity with Article 5(1).
Considering that it was unable to establish the imputability to Turkey under the Convention of the detention of 146 Greek Cypriots at Saray prison and Pavlides Garage in the Turkish sector of Nicosia, the Commission, by ten votes against two abstentions, does not consider itself called upon to express an opinion as to the conformity with Article 5 of the detention of Greek Cypriot prisoners in the north of Cyprus.
The Commission by fourteen votes against none, with two abstentions, has not found it necessary to examine the question of a breach of Article 5 with regard to persons accorded the status of prisoners of war.
The Commission by seven votes against six with three abstentions, decided not to consider as a separate issue the effect of detention on the exercise of the right to respect for one's private and family life and home (Article 8 of the Convention).
[Go back to Contents]


Deprivation of life

The Commission, by fourteen votes against one, considers that the evidence before it constitutes very strong indications of violations of Article 2 of the Convention by Turkey in a substantial number of cases. The Commission restricted the taking of evidence to a hearing of a limited number of representative witnesses and the Delegation, during the period fixed for the hearing of witnesses, heard eye-witnesses only concerning the incident of Elia. The evidence obtained for this incident establishes the killing of twelve civilians near Elia by Turkish soldiers commanded by an officer contrary to Article 2.
In view of the very detailed material before it on other killings alleged by the applicant Government, the Commission by fourteen votes against one, concludes from the whole evidence that killings happened on a larger scale that in Elia.
There is nothing to show that any of these deprivations of life were justified under paras. (1) or (2) of Article 2.
[Go back to Contents]


Ill-treatment

The Commission, by twelve votes against one, finds that the incidents of rape described in the cases referred to and regarded as established constitute "inhuman treatment" and thus violations of Article 3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention.
The Commission, by twelve votes against one, concludes that prisoners were in a number of cases physically ill-treated by Turkish soldiers. These acts of ill-treatment caused considerable injuries and at least in one case the death of the victim. By their severity they constitute "inhuman treatment" and thus violations of Article 3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention.
The Commission, by twelve votes against one, concludes that the withholding of an adequate supply of food and drinking water and of adequate medical treatment from Greek Cypriot prisoners held at Adana and detainees in the northern area of Cyprus, with the exception of Pavlides Garage and Saray prison, again constitutes, in the cases considered as established and in the conditions described, "inhuman treatment", and thus a violation of Article 3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention.
[Go back to Contents]

Forced labor

The Commission by eight votes against three and with one abstention, finds that the incompleteness of the investigation with regard to the allegations of forced labor does not allow any conclusions to be made on this issue.

[Ptolemy]

3rd Report of the European Commission of Human Rights Turkey's invasion in Cyprus and aftermath
(11 February 1983 to date)
Currently continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus
As Turkey seeks to perpetuate her occupation of northern Cyprus new violations as well as continuing breaches of rights manifest themselves:
Continuing Breaches
Displacement of persons
Unremitting refusal to allow 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to return to the occupied area and to allow any displaced Turkish Cypriots to return to the Government-controlled area.

Deprivation of homes and properties

In May 1985 the puppet regime in the Turkish occupied area purported to introduce a "Constitution", Article 159 of which expropriated all immovable property belonging to Greek Cypriots displaced by Turkey, much of this property being taken for the use of the Turkish Army. In September 1986, the Turkish settler and Cypriot coalition "Government", announcing their program, declared that in place of definitive possession certificates they would now start giving title deeds conferring full ownership on those who had earlier been allocated Greek Cypriot-owned land.

New Breaches
Public threats to settle Varosha (Famagusta)
Turkey's puppet regime has repeatedly threatened, with an increasing intensity in 1986, to settle the as yet unoccupied Varosha area of Famagusta with Turks, instead of returning it to its 35,000 lawful inhabitants, the Greek Cypriot refugees of Varosha. (Mr Ecevit declared that Varosha could never be returned, Ankara Radio, 7.25.1986).

Threats to occupy the free area

Threats that the Turkish army will occupy the southern part of Cyprus, which is under control of the Government of the Republic, are leaked by the Turkish Government and Army to Turkey's major newspapers.

[Ptolemy]

10.5.2001

Press release issued by the Registrar

JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CYPRUS v. TURKEY

In a Grand Chamber judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 10 May 2001 in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94), the European Court of Human Rights held, by sixteen votes to one, that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court held that there had been the following 14 violations of the Convention (see Decision of the Court for details):

Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives


a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;


a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;


a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Home and property of displaced persons


a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;


a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;


a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus


a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;


a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;


a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;

a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.
Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus


a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.
The Court further held that there had been no violation concerning a number of complaints, including all those raised under: Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) read in conjunction with all those provisions. As regards a number of other allegations, the Court held that it was not necessary to consider the issues raised.

The Court also decided, unanimously, that the question of the possible application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.

1. Principal facts

The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. In connection with that situation, Cyprus maintained that Turkey had continued to violate the Convention in northern Cyprus after the adoption of two earlier reports by the European Commission of Human Rights, which were drawn up following previous applications brought by Cyprus against Turkey.

In the Convention proceedings, Cyprus contended that Turkey was accountable under the Convention for the violations alleged notwithstanding the proclamation of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" in November 1983 and the subsequent enactment of the "TRNC Constitution" in May 1985. Cyprus maintained that the "TRNC" was an illegal entity from the standpoint of international law and pointed to the international community’s condemnation of the establishment of the "TRNC". Turkey, on the other hand, maintained that the "TRNC" was a democratic and constitutional State, which was politically independent of all other sovereign States, including Turkey. For that reason, Turkey stressed that the allegations made by Cyprus were imputable exclusively to the "TRNC" and that Turkey could not be held accountable under the Convention for the acts or omissions on which those allegations were based.

2. Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 November 1994. Having declared the application admissible on 28 June 1996, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in respect of various matters raised by the application in Strasbourg (27-28 November 1997), Cyprus (21-24 February 1998) and London (22 April 1998). Having concluded that there was no basis on which a friendly settlement could be secured, the Commission, following an oral hearing, adopted a report on 4 June 1999 in which it established the facts and expressed an opinion as to whether the facts disclosed the alleged breaches by Turkey of its obligations under the Convention.

The case was referred to the Court by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on 30 August 1999 and by the Commission on 11 September 1999. The panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided that the case should be examined by the Grand Chamber.



3. Composition of the Court

Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows:

Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President,
Elisabeth Palm (Swedish),
Jean-Paul Costa (French),
Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italian),
Lucius Caflisch (Swiss),
Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian),
Karel Jungwiert (Czech),
Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger),
Boštjan Zupanθiθ (Slovenian),
Nina Vajiζ (Croatian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia),
Tudor Panώξru (Moldovan),
Egils Levits (Latvian),
Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges,
Kutlu Tekin Fuad, ad hoc judge in respect of Turkey,
Silvio Marcus-Helmons, ad hoc judge in respect of Cyprus,

and also Michele de Salvia, Registrar.

[Ptolemy]

4. Complaints

Before the Court, Cyprus alleged violations of the Convention under Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1, and Articles 14, 17, and 18. According to Cyprus, these Articles were violated as a matter of administrative practice by the respondent State.

The allegations concerned the following issues:

(a) Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

In respect of Greek-Cypriot missing persons, it was alleged that, if any were still in Turkish custody, this would constitute a form of slavery or servitude contrary to Article 4 and a grave breach of their right to liberty under Article 5. In addition, Cyprus maintained that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 5 on account of Turkey’s failure to carry out an investigation into the disappearance of these persons in life-threatening circumstances and to account for their whereabouts.

In respect of the relatives of missing persons, Cyprus alleged violations of Articles 3, 8 and 10 on account of the Turkish authorities’ consistent and continuing failure to provide information on the fate of the missing persons.

(b) Home and property of displaced persons

Cyprus complained, among other things, under Article 8 (the continuing refusal to allow Greek Cypriots to return to their homes and families in northern Cyprus; implantation of Turkish settlers in northern Cyprus to the detriment of the demographic and cultural environment of northern Cyprus), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (denial of access to and enjoyment of property, re-assignment of property, withholding of compensation and deprivation of title), Article 13 of the Convention (failure to provide any remedy to displaced persons in respect of the alleged violations of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and Article 14 taken in conjunction with the preceding Articles (discrimination against Greeks and Greek Cypriots as regards, among other things, enjoyment of their property). Cyprus further invoked Article 3 (discrimination against displaced persons amounting to ill-treatment), and Articles 17 (abuse of rights) and 18 (impermissible use of restrictions on rights).

(c) Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in the Karpas region of northern Cyprus

As regards the Karpas Greek Cypriots, Cyprus relied on, among other things, Articles 2 (denial of adequate medical treatment and services), 3 (discriminatory treatment; in particular in view of their advanced age, the restrictions placed on them and methods of coercion used were said to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (threat to security of person and absence of official action to prevent this), 6 (lack of a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law for the determination of their civil rights), 8 (interference with their right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence), 9 (interference with their right to manifest their religion on account of restrictions on their freedom of movement and access to places of worship), 10 (excessive censorship of school-books and restrictions on importation of Greek-language newspapers and books), 11 (impediments to their participation in bi or inter-communal events or gatherings), 13 (denial of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints) and 14 (discrimination on racial, religious and linguistic grounds), and Articles 1 (interference with the property of deceased Greek Cypriots as well as with the property of such persons who permanently leave northern Cyprus) and 2 (denial of secondary-education facilities to Greek-Cypriot children) of Protocol No. 1.

(d) Complaints relating to Turkish Cypriots, including members of the Gypsy community, living in northern Cyprus

Cyprus alleged, among other things, violations in relation to Turkish Cypriots who are opponents of the "TRNC" rιgime of Articles 5 (arbitrary arrest and detention), 6 (trial by "military courts"), 8 (assaults and harassment by third parties), 10 (prohibition of Greek-language newspapers and interference with the right to freedom of expression), 11 (denial of the right to associate freely with Greek Cypriots), Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (failure to allow Turkish Cypriots to return to their properties in southern Cyprus). Violations were also alleged of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the treatment of Turkish-Cypriot Gypsies living in northern Cyprus.

5. Decision of the Court

Preliminary issues

The Court considered, unanimously, that, notwithstanding Turkey’s failure either to submit a memorial to the Court or to attend the oral hearing held on 20 September 2000 and to plead these issues afresh, it had jurisdiction to examine those preliminary issues raised by Turkey in the proceedings before the Commission which the Commission reserved for the merits stage.

The Court held, unanimously, that the applicant Government had both locus standi to bring the application, given that the Republic of Cyprus was the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, and a legitimate legal interest in having the merits of the application examined since neither of the resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Commission’s previous reports had resulted in a decision which could be said to be dispositive of the issues raised in the application. Furthermore, the Court, unanimously, confirmed the Commission’s conclusion that situations which ended more than six months before the date of introduction of the application (22 May 1994) fell outside the scope of its examination.

As to Turkey’s denial of liability under the Convention for the allegations made against it, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that the facts complained of in the application fell within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and therefore entailed the respondent State’s responsibility under the Convention. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that such a finding was consistent with its earlier statements in its Loizidou v. Cyprus (merits) judgment [fn]. In that judgment, the Court had noted that Turkey exercised effective overall control of northern Cyprus through its military presence there, with the result that its responsibility under the Convention was engaged for the policies and actions of the "TRNC" authorities. In the instant case, the Court stressed that Turkey’s responsibility under the Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration ("the TRNC"), which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support.

The Court further held, by ten votes to seven, that, for the purposes of the exhaustion requirements under the former Article 26 (current Article 35 § 1), remedies available in the "TRNC" may be regarded as "domestic remedies" of the respondent State and that the question of the effectiveness of these remedies had to be considered in the specific circumstances where it arose, on a case-by case basis. The majority of the Court, in line with the majority viewpoint of the Commission, considered, among other things, and with reference to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case, that in situations similar to those arising in the present case, the obligation to disregard acts of de facto entities, like the "TRNC", was far from absolute. For the Court, life went on in the territory concerned for its inhabitants and that life must be made tolerable and be protected by the de facto authorities, including their courts. It considered that, and in the interests of the inhabitants, the acts of those authorities could not simply be ignored by third States or by international institutions, especially courts. To hold otherwise would amount to stripping the inhabitants of the territory of all their rights whenever they were discussed in an international context, which would amount to depriving them even of the minimum standard of rights to which they were entitled. In reaching this conclusion, the Court’s majority stressed that its reasoning did not in any way legitimise the "TRNC" and reaffirmed the view that the government of the Republic of Cyprus remained the sole legitimate government of Cyprus.

(a) Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

The Court, unanimously, found that there had been no violation of Article 2 by reason of an alleged violation of a substantive obligation under that Article in respect of any of the missing persons. The evidence before it did not substantiate to the required standard that any of the missing persons were killed in circumstances engaging the respondent State’s liability.

On the other hand, the Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 on account of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances.

The Court concluded, unanimously, that no violation of Article 4 had been established.

Although it found, unanimously, that it had not been established that, during the period under consideration, any of the missing persons were actually in detention, the Court ruled, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 by virtue of the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance.

As to the relatives of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3. In the Court’s opinion, the silence of the authorities of the respondent State in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Having regard to that conclusion, the Court held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention had been violated in respect of the relatives of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons.

[Ptolemy]

b) Home and property of displaced persons

The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 8 by reason of the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus. Having regard to that conclusion, the Court found, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a further violation of that Article by reason of the alleged manipulation of the demographic and cultural environment of the Greek-Cypriot displaced persons’ homes in northern Cyprus. As to the applicant Government’s complaint under Article 8 concerning the interference with the right to respect for family life on account of the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus, the Court held, unanimously, that this complaint fell to be considered in the context of their allegations in respect of the living conditions of the Karpas Greek Cypriots.

Furthermore, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights.

The Court also held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 by reason of the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It did not find it necessary (unanimously) to examine whether in this case there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or whether the alleged discriminatory treatment of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons also gave rise to a breach of Article 3. It was also of the unanimous view that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant Government’s complaints under Articles 17 and 18, having regard to its findings under Articles 8 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

(c) Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 9 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus. As regards Maronites living in northern Cyprus it found, unanimously, no violation of Article 9. The Court also held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 10 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship.

The Court further held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised.

The Court also ruled, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them.

In addition, the Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment. It observed in this connection that the Karpas Greek-Cypriot population was compelled to live in a situation of isolation and that its members were controlled and restricted in their movements and had no prospect of renewing or developing their community. For the Court, the conditions under which the population was condemned to live were debasing and violated the very notion of respect for the human dignity of its members. The discriminatory treatment attained a level of severity which amounted to degrading treatment.

The Court further held, by sixteen votes to one, that, from an overall standpoint, there had been a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home. In this connection the Court noted that the population concerned was subjected to serious restrictions on the exercise of these rights, including monitoring of its members’ movements and contacts. The surveillance effected by the authorities even extended to the physical presence of State agents in the homes of Greek Cypriots on the occasion of social or other visits paid by third parties, including family members. Having regard to that conclusion, the Court found, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant Government’s complaint under Article 8 concerning the effect of the respondent State’s alleged colonisation policy on the demographic and cultural environment of the Greek Cypriots’ homes. The Court further found, unanimously, no violation of Article 8 concerning the right to respect for correspondence by reason of an alleged practice of interference with the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their correspondence.

The Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1. On the other hand, it held, by eleven votes to six, that no violation of Article 13 had been established by reason of the alleged absence of remedies in respect of interferences by private persons with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that no violation of Article 2 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of denying access to medical services to Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in northern Cyprus and, by the same margin, that there had been no violation of Article 5. Furthermore, by eleven votes to six, it held that no violation of Article 6 had been established in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus by reason of an alleged practice of denying them a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. The Court also held, unanimously, that no violation of Article 11 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of denying Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus the right to freedom of association and that no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been established by virtue of an alleged practice of failing to protect the property of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus against interferences by private persons.

The Court decided, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, having regard to its finding under Article 3 and, by fourteen votes to three, that, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case, it was not necessary to for it to examine whether there had been a breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with other relevant Articles.

(d) Right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold elections

The Court held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether the facts disclosed a violation of the right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold free elections, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

(e) Rights of Turkish Cypriots, including members of Gypsy community, living in northern Cyprus

Under this heading, the Court, unanimously, declined jurisdiction to examine those aspects of the applicant Government’s complaints under Articles 6, 8, 10 and 11 in respect of political opponents of the regime in the "TRNC" as well as their complaints under Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community, which were held by the Commission not to be within the scope of the case as declared admissible.

The Court found, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Articles 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 concerning the rights of Turkish Cypriot opponents of the regime in northern Cyprus by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to protect their rights under these Articles. By sixteen votes to one, the Court found no violation of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14 concerning the rights of members of the Turkish-Cypriot Gypsy community by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to protect this group’s rights under these Articles.

It held, unanimously, that: no violation of Article 10 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of restricting the right of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to receive information from the Greek-language press; no violation of Article 11 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of interference with the right to freedom of association or assembly of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus; no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been established by reason of an alleged administrative practice, including an alleged practice of failing to secure enjoyment of their possessions in southern Cyprus to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus.

By eleven votes to six, the Court found that no violation of Article 13 had been established by reason of an alleged practice of failing to secure effective remedies to Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus.

f) Alleged violations of Articles 1, 17, 18 and former Article 32 § 4

The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant Government’s complaints under these Articles.

Judges Palm, Costa, Jungwiert, Panώξru, Levits, Kovler, Fuad and Marcus-Helmons expressed partly dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court.

[akritas]

The European Comission make its job very well, the problem are the governments. I think Turkey will be more pressure in the future.