Turkey's invasion in
Cyprus and aftermath
(19 May 1976 to 10
February 1983)
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 in Cyprus vs. Turkey (Third Application).
Here
are the Contents:
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]
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]
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.
[Go
back to Contents]
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.
[Go
back to Contents]
|