QuoteReplyTopic: CYPRUS issue Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 13:32
EOKA served two purposes to be exact:
1)to fight against British
rule
2)stop the Turkish plans of partion of the island.
Need I mention exactly how TMT attempted to part the island, what tactics were used,what happened to opposing Turk-Cypriots?
I think I should
Among those that defied the politics of Ankara and paid dearly for
their atitude were:
Fazil Ondur, editor of the newspaper Inkilapci, killed
on 29 May 1959,
Ahmet Yahaya, committee member, killed on 5 June
1958,
Kutlu Adali, the Turkish Cypriot journalist, killed July 1996
An
attempt was made on the life of Arif Barudi on 3 July 1958,
And on Ahmet
Sadi, the director of the Turkish office of the Pancypriot Labour
Federation.
How bout the bombing incident at the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, in June 1955 that led to
serious rioting in Constadinoupoli and Smyrna. Only to be later
learned that the bombing had been carried out by a Turk, and that the riots had been prearranged by the government of Turkey to
bring pressure on the Hellines and to show the world that Turks were keenly interested in Cyprus.
Anyway, to answer your question, yes there were attacks on both sides, that is sure.
Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Why can't the Greeks and Turks just unite into one indepent nation?
Do you mean Greece and the Republic of Turkey uniting?Even though we have a lot in common the chances of such a thing happening are as much as the chances of Turkey entering the EU.
Freedom is the recognition of necessity.-Friedrich Engels
Both intelligent and with a good sense of humour, gee thanks
So you reject the FACT that TAKSIM was developed in the 50's????
Try asking Rauf Denktash!!! he'll tell you when they formed that terror organization also known as: Turk Mukavemet Teskilati (TMT)
Denktash: Three people established the TMT
According to KIBRIS (16.6.00) Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash, speaking to a group of former commanders of the terrorist organization TMT (Turkish Resistance Organization), stressed that three people, late Dr. Burhan Nalbantoglu, Kemal Tanrisevdi and himself established the terrorist organization.
Commenting on one of the leaders of the terrorist organization Ismail Tansu's claim that it was colonel Riza Vuruskan (sent from Turkey) and Tansu that established the TMT, Denktash said that Tansu rendered very valuable services to the TMT, however, he added, it was three people who founded the terrorist organization.
Denktash admits establishing the TMT
KIBRIS (19.5.99) reports that Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash while meeting the members of the new executive committee of the terrorist organization TMT, the so-called Turkish Cypriot Fighters Association, has said that he and late Burhan Nalbantoglu and Kemal Tanriserdi established the terrorist organization in November 1957.
SOURCE: http://turkeyhumanrights.fw.bz/TMT.htm#d
I can see why his words are not diectly quoted
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
OK, this will be a very long read but aknc you've been asking for it!!!!
341
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 Turkeys 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 communitys
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),
Botjan Zupančič (Slovenian),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia),
Tudor Panţru (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.
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 Turkeys 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" rgime 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 Turkeys 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 Commissions 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
Commissions 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 Turkeys 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 States 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.
Turkey (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 Turkeys 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 Courts 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
States 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 Courts 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.
(b) Home and property of displaced persons
The Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a continuingviolation 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 Governments 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 Governments 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 Governments complaint under Article 8 concerning the effect
of the respondent States 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 Governments
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 groups 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 Governments complaints under these
Articles.
Judges Palm, Costa,
Jungwiert, Panţru, Levits, Kovler, Fuad and Marcus-Helmons expressed
partly dissenting opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.
***
The Courts 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.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
- having regard to
its previous resolutions on the situation in Cyprus and to its resolution of 12
July 1995 on Cyprus' application for membership of the European Union, >>
A. deeply shocked by
the killings that took place in August during a peaceful demonstration for the
reunification of the island, where two Greek Cypriots were killed and several
wounded, including two UN peacekeepers, by the security forces of the
Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, >>
B. having regard to
the so-called counter-demonstrations organised by the Turkish authorities with
the active involvement and participation of elements belonging to the Turkish
armed forces and the illegal occupying powers, >>
C. whereas a large
contingent of extremist Turkish "Grey Wolves". armed with crowbars
and spiked clubs, has been brought from Turkey in order to instigate a violent
escalation of the so- called counter-demonstrations, thereby creating the false
impression that peaceful coexistence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots is
impossible, >>
D. whereas, according
to a statement by the Cypriot Government, a member of the Denktash regime has
been identified as being apparently involved in the assassination of the Greek
Cypriot Solomos Solomou, >>
E. whereas these tragic
events have been denounced internationally and condemned by all governments and
international organisations, >>
F. having regard to
the urgent need for a fair and viable solution, based on international law and
the UN resolutions on Cyprus, and in accordance with established Community Law,
>>
Condemns
the murders of the two young Greek Cypriots by the Turkish Army of occupation
and members of the unlawful Denktash regime, and expresses its support for the
families of the two victims, >>
Expresses deep concern at
the indiscriminate use of violence by the Turkish occupying forces; >>
Condemns the fact that
members of the Turkish extremist organisation "Grey Wolves" were
brought from Turkey to Cyprus so that they could enter into conflict with
unarmed demonstrators and takes the view that this policy is endangering
peace and security in Cyprus; >>
Calls on Turkey to
cooperate by taking all necessary measures to identify, arrest and bring
to justice all those implicated in the murders and the decision to fire on
unarmed civilians; >>
Calls on the United
Nations to cooperage in seeking those responsible for these crimes; >>
Calls on the Council and
Commission, as a matter of urgency, to intensify their joint action and
joint endeavours to resolve the Cyprus problem in accordance with
paragraph 19 of its abovementioned resolution; >>
Welcomes the decision of
the Irish Presidency to maintain a special EU representative for the
Cyprus problem; asks, in this respect, the Council to make every effort to
coordinate the initiatives of the UN, British and US representatives in a
joint and more effective action and invites the representative of the
Council Presidency for Cyprus, Ambassador Kester Heaslip, to report also
to Parliament on his visits to the region during the summer; >>
Supports the proposal of
the Cyprus government for the demilitarisation of the island and asks
Turkey to withdraw its occupation forces and abide by the UN resolutions
on Cyprus; >>
Appeals to the government
of Cyprus and the leadership of the Turkish-Cypriot community to continue
to look for a peaceful and just solution to the Cyprus problem, along the
lines of relevant UN Security Council resolutions; >>
Deplores the numerous
incidents in the neutral zone which have caused several victims along both
sides of the demarcation line; >>
Instructs its President
to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments
of the Member States and the governments and parliaments of Cyprus and
Turkey and the united Nations. >>
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
-having regard to
its previous resolutions on t="on">Cyprus,
in particular its resolutions of 12 July 1995 on t="on">Cyprus's
appli- cation for membership of the European Union', and 19 September 1996 on
the situation in t="on">lace wt="on">Cypruslace>,
>>
A. shocked by the
latest cold-blooded murder in t="on">Cyprus
of yet another Greek Cypriot, Petros Kakoulis, in t="on">Cyprus
by the Tur- t="on">lace wt="on">kishlace>
occupation army, >>
B. whereas this
totally unjustified act took place near the former police station of Achna, a
territory controlled by the British military base at Dhekelia, while the base
police and officials of the United Nations peacekeeping forces were not
permitted to approach the site of the incident, >>
C. emphasizing the
fact that the victim was the fourth unarmed Greek Cypriot murdered without
reason over the last months by the Turkish occupation army or Turkish
paramilitary organiza- tions, which could be an indication of the real
intentions of some extremist circles to create the false impression that the
two communities of the island of Cyprus cannot peacefully coexist, >>
D. having regard to
the refusal of the occupation authorities to comply with the repeated
requests from the European Parlia- ment's Subcommittee on Human Rights for
authorization to visit Greek Cypriots imprisoned in the occupied part of
Cyprus in conditions which are in breach of those set out in the rel- evant
international conventions, as is demonstrated in the UN Secretary-General's
recent report to the Security Council, >>
E. having regard to
the continuing violation of the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms
of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the enclave in
Turkish-occupying regime to allow one of the three Greek Cypriot teachers in
Karpassia who is retiring to be replaced. >>
1. Strongly
condemns the murder of Petros Kakoulis by the Turkish occupation forces,
expresses its sincere condolences to the victim's families and asks the
Commission and the Council to inform the Turkish occupation forces of the
deep indignation of the European Union with regard to the incident; >>
2. Calls for a
thorough investigation of the incident in order to identify those responsible
and bring them to justice; >>
3. Believes that
the people of Cyprus, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike, wish to see an end to
the killings and to the division of the island, and that Cyprus' accession to
the EU will benefit both communities and contribute to a solution of the
Cyprus problem; >>
4. Reminds the
Turkish Government that relations between Turkey and the EU depend partly on
the Turkish Government's policy on Cyprus and reiterates its decision to
freeze financial coop- eration with Turkey as well as the MEDA programme with
regard to Turkey, with the exception of those aspects concerning the
promotion of democracy, human rights and civil society; >>
5. Calls on Turkey
to respect the human rights and the funda- mental freedoms of the Greek
Cypriots and Maronites in the enclave, to put an end to any action or
omission which viol- ates these rights and freedoms and to implement
faithfully the provisions of the Third Vienna Agreement of 1975, particularly
with regard to prisoners of whatever faith or origin who are imprisoned in
the occupied part of Cyprus; >>
6. Calls upon the
Member States to respond with continued firm pressure on Turkey with the aim
of freeing the island of the presence of all Turkish troops, guaranteeing
freedom of move- ment for all citizens and working for a just and peaceful
solution to the current Cypriot problem, along the lines of relevant UN
Security Council resolutions; >>
7. Reiterates its
support for the Cypriot Government's proposal to demilitarize the island and
calls on Turkey to withdraw the occupying forces and to comply with the UN
resolutions on Cyprus; >>
8. Instructs its
President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the
governments of the Member States, the governments and parliaments of Cyprus
and Turkey and the United Nations. >>
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Resolution 1987/50 of the Commission of Human Rights
Adopted on 11.3.1987 on the question of Human Rights in Cyprus
The Commission of Human Rights,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations,
Mindful of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international instruments in the field of human rights,
Noting General Assembly resolutions 3212 (XXIX) of 1 November 1974,
3395() of 20 November 1975, 3450() of 9 November 1975, 31/12 of
12 November 1976, 32/15 of 9 November 1977, 32/128 of 16 December 1977,
34/30 of 20 November 1979, 37/181 of 17 December 1982 and 37/253 of 13
May 1983,
Noting also Security Council resolutions on Cyprus and in particular
resolutions 541(1983) of 18 November 1983 and 550(1984) of 11 May 1984,
Recalling its previous resolutions 4(I) of 13 February 1975, 4(II) of 27 February 1976 and 17(IV) of 7 March 1978,
Mindful of the need to restore human rights in Cyprus without delay,
Reaffirming the basic human need of families to be informed without further delay, about the fate of their missing relatives,
Alarmed by the fact that changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus
are continuing with the influx of great numbers of settlers,
Recommending that the interested parties do their utmost to find a just
and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem, based on respect for the
sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of
the Republic of Cyprus and on the restoration and safeguarding of the
human rights of all Cypriots,
Noting the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN. 4/1987/19) under Commission decision 1986/103 of 12 March 1986,
1. Reiterates its previous calls for the full restoration of all human
rights to the population of Cyprus, in particular to the refugees;
2. Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other
than its inhabitants as illegal and calls for the immediate cessation
of such activities;
3. Calls for the tracing of and accounting for missing persons in Cyprus without any further delay;
4. Calls for the restoration and respect of the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots, including the freedom of
movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission on Human
Rights at its forty-fourth session, with information relevant to the
implementation of the present resolution;
6. Decides to consider the question of human rights in Cyprus at its forty-fourth session.
Adopted at the 56th meeting by 25 votes to 3, with 15 abstentions.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted on May13, 1983, resolution 37/253
on Cyprus. The vote on the resolution was 103 in favor and 5 against with 20
abstentions. The votes against the resolution were cast by Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Somalis and Turkey.
Following is the text of the resolution:
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of Cyprus,
Recalling its resolution 3212(XXIX) of 1 November 1974 and its subsequent
resolutions on the question of Cyprus,
Recalling the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977 and 19 May 1979,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of occupation and acquisition
of territories by force,
Greatly concerned at the prolongation of the Cyprus crisis, which poses
serious threat to international peace and security,
Deeply regretting that the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus have
not yet been implemented,
Recalling the idea of holding an international conference on Cyprus,
Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is
till occupied by foreign forces,
Deploring the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks,
Deploring all unilateral actions that change the demographic structure of
Cyprus to promote faits accomplis,
Reaffirming the need to settle the question of Cyprus without further delay
by peaceful means in accordance with the provitions of the Charter of the United
Nations and the relevant United Nations resolutions,
1. Reiterates its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial
itegrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and calls once again
for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs;
2. Affirms the right of the Republic of Cyprus and its people to full and
effective sovereignty and the control over the entire territory of Cyprus and
its natural and other resources and calls upon all states to support and help
the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise these rights;
3. Condemns any act which tends to undermine the full and effective exercise
of the above-mentioned rights, including the unlawful issues of titles of ownership
of property;
4. Welcomes the proposal for total demilitarization made by the President of
the Republic of Cyprus;
5. Expresses its support for the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977
and 19 May 1979 and all the provisions thereof;
6. Demands the immediate and effective implementation of resolution
3212(XXIX), unanimously adopted by the General Assembly and endorsed by the
Security Council in its resolution 365(1974) of 13 December (1974), and of the
subsequent resolutions of the Assembly and the Council on Cyprus, which provide
the valid and essential basis for the solution of the problem of Cyprus;
7. Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of
Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of
the Cyprus problem;
8. Demand s the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic
pf Cyprus;
9. Commends the intensification of the efforts made by the Secretary-General,
while noting with concern the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks;
10. Calls for meaningful, result-oriented, constructive and substantive
negotiations between the representatives of the two communities, to be conducted
freely on an equal footing on the basis of relevant United Nations
resolutions and the high level agreements, with a view to reaching as early as
possible a mutually acceptable agreement based on the fundamental and legitimate
right of the two communities;
11. Calls for respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all
Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the
right to property and the instituting of urgent measures for the voluntary
return of the refugees to their homes in safety;
12. Considers that the de facto situation created by the force of arms should
not be allowed to influence or in any way affect the solution of the problem of Cyprus;
13. Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any unilateral action
which might adversely effect the prospects of a just and lasting solution of the
problem of Cyprus by peaceful means and to cooperate fully with the
Secretary-General in the performance of his task under the relevant
resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as with the
United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus;
14. Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any action which
violates or is designed to violate the independence, unity, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus;
15. Reiterates its recommendation that the Security Council should examine
the question of the implementation, within a specified time-frame, of its
relevant resolutions and consider and adopt thereafter, if necessary, all
appropriate and practical measures under the Charter of the United Nations for
ensuring the speedy and effective implementation of the resolutions of the
United Nations on Cyprus;
16. Welcomes the intention of the Secretary-General, as expressed in his
report (Doc. A/37/805 of 6/5/1983), to pursue a renewed personal involvement in
the quest for a solution of the Cyprus problem and, in view of this,
requests the Secretary General to undertake such actions or initiatives as he
may consider appropriate within the framework of the mission of good offices
entrusted to him by the Security Council fro promoting a just and lasting
solution of the problem and to report to the General Assembly as its
thirty-eighth session on the results of his efforts;
17. Decides to include the provisional agenda of its thirty-eighth session
the item entitled "Question of Cyprus" and requests the Secretary-General
to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to report on all
its aspects to the General Assembly at that session.
Separate vote on paragraph 8
A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 8, which was approved by 89
votes in favor, 5 against and 27 abstentions.
Separate vote on paragraph 15
A separate vote was also taken on operative paragraph 15 which was approved
by 86 votes in favor, 8 against and 25 abstentions.
http://www.un.int/cyprus/Res37253GA.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3212 (XXIX)
The General Assembly adopted on the evening of 1st November, 1974,
resolution 3212(XXIX) by 117 votes in favour, none against and no
abstentions.
The resolution reads as follows:
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of Cyprus,
Gravely concerned about the continuation of the Cyprus crisis, which constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Mindful of the need to solve this crisis without delay by peaceful
means, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United
Nations,
Having heard the statements in the debate and taking note of the Report
of the Special Political Committee on the Question of Cyprus,
1. Calls upon all states to respect the sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and
to refrain from all acts and interventions directed against it;
2. Urges the speedy withdrawal of all foreign armed forces and foreign
military presence and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus and the
cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs;
3. Considers that the constitutional system of the Republic of Cyprus
concerns the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities;
4. Commends the contacts and negotiations taking place on an equal
footing, with the good offices of the Secretary-General between the
representatives of the two communities, and calls for their
continuation with a view to reaching freely a mutually acceptable
political settlement, based on their fundamental and legitimate rights;
5. Considers that all the refugees should return to their homes in
safety and calls upon the parties concerned to undertake urgent
measures to that end;
6. Expresses the hope that, if necessary, further efforts including
negotiations can take place, within the framework of the United
Nations, for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the present
resolution, thus ensuring to the Republic of Cyprus its fundamental
right to independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to provide United Nations
humanitarian assistance to all parts of the population of Cyprus and
calls upon all states to contribute to that effort;
8. Calls upon all parties to continue to cooperate fully with the
United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus, which may be strengthened
if necessary;
9. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to lend his good offices to the parties concerned;
10. Further requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of the Security Council.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Having considered the situation in Cyprus at the request of the
Government of the Republic of Cyprus,
Having heard the statement made by the President of the Republic of
Cyprus,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General (S/16519),
Recalling its resolutions 365(1974), 367(1975), 541(1983) and
544(1983),
Deeply regretting the non-implementation of its resolutions, in
particular resolution 541(1983),
Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied
part of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541(1983),
namely the purported "exchange of Ambassadors" between Turkey and the
legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the
contemplated holding of a "Constitutional referendum" and
"elections", as well as by other actions or threats of action aimed at
further consolidating the purported independent state and the division of
Cyprus,
Deeply concerned about recent threats for settlement of Varosha by
people other than its inhabitants,
Reaffirming its continuing support for the United Nations
Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,
1. Reaffirms its resolution 541(1983) and calls for its urgent and
effective implementation,
2. Condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange
of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them
illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal;
3. Reiterates the call upon all States not to recognise the purported
state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by
secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the
aforesaid secessionist entity;
4. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;
5. Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other
than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to
the administration of the United Nations;
6. Considers any attempts to interfere with the status or the
deployment of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus as contrary to
the resolutions of the United Nations;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the urgent implementation
of Security Council resolution 541(1983);
8. Reaffirms its mandate of good offices given to the Secretary
General and requests him to undertake new efforts to attain an overall solution
to the Cyprus problem in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the
United Nations and the provisions for such a settlement laid down in the
pertinent United Nations resolutions, including Security Council resolution
541(1983) and the present resolution;
9. Calls upon all parties to cooperate with the Secretary-General in
his mission of good offices;
10. Decides to remain seized of the situation with a view to taking
urgent and appropriate measures in the event of non-implementation of its
resolution 541(1983) and the present resolution;
11. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the implementation of
the resolution and to report thereon to the Security Council as developments
require.
Adopted at the 2539th meeting by 13 votes to 1 (Pakistan) with 1 abstention
(United States of America).
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr550.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
The Unilateral Declaration of Independence
(UDI)
of the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus
in violation of International Law and
UN Security Council Resolutions>
>
>
>
November 15, 2000
>
>
November 15 marks
seventeen years since the illegal regime in the occupied part of Cyprus, with
the encouragement of the Turkish government, unilaterally declared independence
in violation of international law and of the treaties of establishment and
guarantees of the Republic of Cyprus. That illegal act was condemned by the UN
Security Council in its resolution 541(1983) which called upon the Turkish side
to withdraw the illegal UDI and to stop all secessionist acts. It further called
upon all states not to facilitate in any way the secessionist entity and not to
recognize any other state than the Republic of Cyprus. >
>
Instead of
complying with resolution 541 (1983), Turkey and its regime in the occupied area
proceeded in six months with a further secessionist act by exchanging
ambassadors.The UN Security
Council, having considered the situation at the request of the Government of the
Republic of Cyprus adopted resolution 550 (1984). The Council expressed grave
concern about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the
Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541 (1983), namely the
purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the legally invalid
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the contemplated holding of a
Constitutional referendum and elections, as well as by other actions
aimed at further consolidating the purported independent state and the division
of Cyprus.
Turkey which
ignores all UN resolutions calling, inter alia, for respect of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and independence of the Republic of Cyprus, aims at
destroying the Republic of Cyprus and establishing two separate states on the
islandlegitimizing in that way her
act of aggression against Cyprus.This
policy has been persistently pursued by Turkeyand the Turkish Cypriot regime in the occupied northern part and it is
now openly advocated as the official position of the Turkish side in the
negotiations for an overall settlement. >
>
From the time of
its invasion, Turkey follows a step by step policy aiming at altering the
demographic structure in the occupied part by bringing in settlers from Turkey
and at changing the character of that part.Ancient toponyms have been changed and been given Turkish names, churches
have been destroyed and the Greek Cypriot population has been driven out of its
place of birth. These policies together with a total negative behavior by Turkey
on the negotiating table to reach a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the
UN resolutions, aim at creating with the passage of time faits accomplis for the
partition of the island. >
>
The Turkish
Government and its illegal regime should come to realize that the illegal entity
in the northern occupied part created and sustained by the use of force, exists
in violation of international law and that it is not possible for the
international community to ever legalize the results of an invasion and
occupation. They should also realize that being in defiance of international law
and UN resolutions, they only lead the Turkish Cypriot Community to further
economic and political isolation.>
>
Turkey is looking forward to enhance its
relations with the European Union and is already a candidate country for
becoming a member of the European Union. It is ourhope and the hope of all concerned that in its road to Europe will adopt
a new behavior characterized by European standards and by the respect of human
rights and international law. In this framework we hope that Turkeys attitude
towards Cyprus will change fundamentally thus permitting a just and viable
solution to the Cyprus problem.
*
* * * *
http://www.un.int/cyprus/pr151100.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Noting from the report of the Secretary-General of 9 June 1975
(S/11717), that in the existing circumstances the presence of the United Nations
Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus is still needed to perform the tasks it is
currently undertaking if the cease-fire is to be maintained in the island and
the search for a peaceful settlement facilitated,
Noting from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,
Noting further that, in paragraphs 67 and 68 of his report, the
Secretary-General has expressed the view, in connection with the talks in Vienna
between representatives of the two communities held pursuant to resolution
367(1975) of 12 March 1975, that the negotiating process should be maintained
and, if possible, accelerated and that its success would require from all
parties determination, understanding and a willingness to make reciprocal
gestures,
Noting also the statement by the Secretary-General contained in
paragraph 69 of his report that the parties concerned had signified their
concurrence in his recommendations that the Security Council extend the
stationing of the Force in Cyprus for a further period of six months,
Noting that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that in view of the
prevailing conditions in the island it is necessary to keep the Force in Cyprus
beyond 15 June 1975,
1. Reaffirms the provisions of resolution 186(1964) of 4 March 1964,
as well as subsequent resolutions and decisions on the establishment and
maintenance of UNFICYP and on other aspects of the situation in Cyprus;
2. Reaffirms once again its resolution 365(1974) of 13 December 1974,
by which it endorsed General Assembly resolution 3212(XXIX) adopted unanimously
on 1 November, 1974, and calls for their urgent and effective implementation and
that of its resolution 367(1975);
3. Urges the parties concerned to act with the utmost restraint and to
continue and accelerate determined co-operative efforts to achieve the
objectives of the Security Council;
4. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the United Nations
Peace-Keeping Force, established under Security Council resolution 186(1964) for
a further period ending 15 December 1975, in the expectation that by then
sufficient progress towards a final solution will make possible a withdrawal or
substantial reduction of the Force;
5. Appeals again to all parties concerned to extend their full
co-operation to the United Nations, Peace-Keeping Force in the continuing
performance of its duties;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to continue the mission of good
offices entrusted to him by paragraph 6 of resolution 367(1975) to keep the
Security Council informed of the progress made and to submit an interim report
by 15 September 1975 and a definite report not later than 15 December, 1975.
Adopted at the 1830th meeting by 14 votes to none. One member (China) did not
participate in the voting.
&nbs p; http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr370.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1792nd meeting,
on 14 August 1974
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 353 (1974) of 20 July, 354 (1974) of 23
July and 355 (1974) of 1 August 1974,
Deeply deploring the resumption of fighting in Cyprus, contrary to the
provisions of its resolution 353 (1974),
1. Reaffirms its resolutions 353 (1974) in all its provisions and calls upon
the parties concerned to implement those provisions without delay;
2. Demands that all parties to the present fighting cease all firing and
military action forthwith;
3. Calls for the resumption of negotiations without delay for the restoration
of peace in the area and constitutional government in Cyprus, in accordance with
resolution 353 (1974);
4. Decides to remain seized of the situation and on instant call to meet as
necessary to consider what more effective measures may be required if the
cease-fire is not respected.
Adopted unanimously at the 1792nd meeting.
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr357.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1793rd meeting,
on 15 August 1974
The Security Council,
Deeply concerned about the continuation of violence and bloodshed in
Cyprus,
Deeply deploring the non-compliance with its resolution 357 (1974) of
14 August 1974,
1. Recalls its resolutions 353 (1974) of 20 July, 354 (1974) of 23
July, 355 (1974) of 1 August 1974 and 357 (1974),
2. Insists on the full implementation of the above resolutions
by all parties and on the immediate and strict observance of the cease-fire.
Adopted unanimously at the 1793rd meeting.
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr358.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974
The Security Council,
Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th
meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,
Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus
and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other
Member States,
Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the
island,
Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing
bloodshed,
Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious
threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most
explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,
Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional
structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international
agreements,
Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of
the United Nations,
1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and
territorial integrity of Cyprus.
2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to
cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to
refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;
3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the
Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1
above;
4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus
of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of
international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the
President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2
July 1974;
5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the
restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to
keep the Secretary-General informed;
6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations
Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;
7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the
Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further
measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as
possible.
Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.ht m
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1143th meeting,
on 9 August 1964
The Security Council,
Concerned at the serious deterioration of the situation in Cyprus,
Reaffirming its resolutions 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964, 187(1964) of 13 March and 192(1964)
of 20 June 1964,
Anticipating the submission of the Secretary-General's report on the situation,
1.Reaffirms the appeal just addressed by the President of the Security Council to the
Governments of Turkey and Cyprus, worded as follows:
'The Security Council has authorized me to make an urgent appeal to the Government of
Turkey to cease instantly the bombardment of and the use of military force of
any kind against Cyprus, and to the Government of Cyprus to order the armed
forces under its control to cease firing immediately';
2.Calls for an immediate cease-fire by all concerned;
3.Calls upon all concerned to cooperate fully with the Commander of the United Nations
Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus in the restoration of peace and security;
4.Calls upon all states to refrain from any action that might exacerbate the situation or
contribute to the broadening of hostilities.
Adopted at the 1143rd meeting by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions Czechoslovakia,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
&nbs p; http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr193.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1102th meeting,
on 4 March 1964
The Security Council,
Noting that the present situation with regard to Cyprus is likely to threaten
international peace and security and may further deteriorate unless additional
measures are promptly taken to maintain peace and to seek out a durable solution,
Considering the positions taken by the parties in relation to the Treaties
signed at Nicosia on 16 August 1960,
Having in mind the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
and its Article 2, paragraph 4, which reads: "All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
1. Calls upon all Member States, in conformity with their obligations under the
Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from any action or threat of action to
worsen the situation in the sovereign Republic of Cyprus, or to endanger
international peace;
2. Asks the Government of Cyprus, which has the responsibility for the maintenance
and restoration of law and order, to take all additional measures necessary to
stop violence and bloodshed in Cyprus;
3. Calls upon the communities in Cyprus and their leaders to act
with the utmost restraint;
4. Recommends the creation, with the consent of the Government of Cyprus, of a United Nations
Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus. The composition and size of the Force shall be
established by the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Governments of
Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The commander of the Force shall
be appointed by the Secretary-General and report to him. The Secretary-General,
who shall keep the Governments providing the Force fully informed, shall report
periodically to the Security Council on its operation;
5. Recommends that the function of the Force should be in the interest of
preserving international peace and security, to use its best efforts to prevent
a recurrence of fighting and, as necessary, to contribute to the maintenance and
restoration of law and order and a return to normal conditions;
6. Recommends that the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three
months, all costs pertaining to it being met, in a manner to be agreed upon by
them, by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of
Cyprus. The Secretary-General may also accept voluntary contributions for the
purpose;
7. Recommends further that the Secretary-General designate, in agreement with the
Government of Cyprus and the Governments of Greece, Turkey and United Kingdom a
mediator who shall use his best endeavors with the representatives of the
communities and also with the aforesaid four Governments, for the purpose of
promoting a peaceful solution and an agreed settlement of the problem
confronting Cyprus, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, having
in mind the well-being of the people as a whole and the preservation of
international peace and security. The mediator shall report periodically to the
Secretary-General on his efforts;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to provide, from funds of the United Nations, as
appropriate, for the remuneration and expenses of the mediator and his staff.
Adopted unanimously at the 1102nd meeting.
&nbs p;
http://www.un.int/cy prus/scr186.htm
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
So never and I do mean NEVER!!! question my sources again.
Unlike you, I only use documents that DO exist.
I do have more if you're not full yet.
Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Now , seriously ...do u BELIEVE that the Turkish co-forumers here , DO NOT know ALL these resolutions that u have posted ???
They DO know them....but they r instructed to DENY them in any way .... They dont mind at all if they r laughed while trying...
So , whatever proof u will bring ....they will find something to say ...it is forged , it is biased , it is not true , it is greek propaganda , we ( Turks ) r not responsible....the little green men from Mars did all these massacres ..we were only defenging our people..
Lots of times they use the other brilliant tactic....U ask a question ...they dont answer...and after 3 days they ask : What was the question again ?? So u rewrite the question and they "forget" again to answer..and they ask u again after 4-5 days..typical game...
The best part comes last....most of them , they r convinced that we r all buying what they mumble...Arent they natural born jesters..??
Personally , i had a very long time to laugh so much at such things.
Tsk tsk, Isk. Quick to proclaim your easy conclusion of Turkish "massacres," while the Greek Cypriots were such poor and innocent angels?
I see you gentlemen are enjoying patting each other on the shoulder, and crying victory over the seemingly case-closing impact of these documents. Here's my response. (And please keep in mind I rarely venture onto this site, so if I don't answer, at least not right away, that doesn't necessarily mean I have no answer... as you seem to be implying with your slow-to-respond foes, who have caused you such hearty amusement.)
You should be ashamed of yourself, Phallanx, for spamming this board with lo-o-ongg documents that nobody is going to read. Next time, it would be more considerate of you to highlight the points you'd like to make, and to provide links on the Internet for anyone interested in the details. Anybody can post long documents. (Maybe one is okay once in a while, but a whole series of them? Is that the purpose of this forum, to get lost in the crowd of difficult-to-get-through legalese in this particular case, or to attempt honest discussion?)
Would you like me to post the many western and "Christian" press reports of the long line of Greek Cypriot barbarities? Those words, I believe, would speak infinitely louder than the opinions of biased anti-Turkish "Christian" parties firmly in alignment with your Greek version of events.
We'll address the nature of these documents in greater detail, as I run down the list of what I've encountered on this thread.
Now, I don't know whether we got the expression, "slow as molosses" from one of our members here, but when Molosses made the utterly false statement of "I must remind you that (Cyprus) has been Greek since the dawn of humanity," I don't know why the honorable Greeks among you did not jump down his throat. The fact is, the nationalistic propaganda of your country drives home this very same notion.
This is why Clerides unashamedly declared years ago, "We have taken these lands from our ancestors as Hellenic, our national duty is to deliver them to our future generations as Hellenic, however not divided but as a whole." President Stephanopoulos also did his bit to distort history when he proclaimed, after having received his Makarios medal of honor: "CYPRUS IS GREEK, and we are not alone in saying that. It is history which declares it so."
When the lies emerge so readily from your leaders' mouths, of course your brains are going to be washed, better than if you were to drop your drachmas into the coin slots of the local laundromat.
I'm not aware of any history book ever crediting Greece to have owned Cyprus. the previous owners of Cyprus, chronologically, were as follows: The Assyrians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Venetians, and the Ottoman Turks. Contrary to Augustus' very intelligent post (adding other parties I wasn't aware of, including the ancient Hittites), where he otherwise observed, "It seems Cyprus was Greek only for a rather small part of its recorded history," "seems" is the key word. What it really seems like is that Cyprus has never been the possession of the government of Greece.
As far as Strategos' response when trapped in the corner with the lie of Cyprus being Greek -- "The RULE of countries can change, but the PEOPLE still remain" -- I beg to offer a caveat. The reason why there are Greeks on the island of Cyprus ever since 1571 is because when the RULE changed, the humanitarian Turks allowed the Greek PEOPLE to remain, and flourish. Quite unlike Greece's inhuman ethnic cleansing policies whenever she had the upper hand with Turks. True in 1821, true in 1919, and true in 1974.
The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed << enosis,>> I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."
In the movie, I don't know why Tony Curtis stepped up to the plate and was quick to shout, I'M SPARTAKUS! I don't know, would you be willing to put your life on the line for another who writes such nonsense as "The situation is that a foreign state,Turkey, invaded illlegaly to another state..."? I hope Spartakus wasn't referring to 1570-1, during the age of empires, where everyone was illegally invading each others' territories... and the Venetians lost the island, only 40 miles off the Turkish coast.
If Spartakus was referring to the legality of the 1974 events, I'll get to that critical question toward the end, when addressing the endless document spams of Phallanx.
Strategos wrote, "I have a feeling that if turks were the main population on Cyprus, then at one time it would want to try to unite with ;the motherland'." Well, Strategos obviously has many emotional feelings about the issue, and while he is certainly welcome to his speculations, his feelings do not translate into fact.
The fact is, When Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman Empire, along with the invading Greeks who meant to enslave his nation, Venizelos was so impressed with the honor of the Turkish leader, he nominated Ataturk for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ataturk made good on his proclamation, "Peace at home, peace in the world." At no time has Turkey taken on an aggressive major military stance outside her borders, except when snapping to the attention of her USA master, getting involved in foreign adventures for which the Turks have rarely received sufficient credit.
Of course, the prejudiced world, just about all of whom fought bloody wars against the Turks over the centuries, is not going to listen to the side of the Turks. So was Turkey suddenly the aggressor in Cyprus, going smack-dab against her peaceful policies since her existence as a republic? That doesn't make any sense.
Once again, the Greeks provoked, and the Turks... after enduring patiently the rude and often criminal Greek jabs time and again... reacted. Action-Reaction; this is the scientific formula of Greeks vs. Turks. Finally, after being fed their medicine, and unhappy about the consequences of the repercussions, do the Greeks ever take it like a man? No. They weep and take their case to their Christian compatriots, the latter of whom have never given the Turks a fair shake.
So when Red Guard asked, "Why can't the Greeks and Turks just unite into one indepent nation?" it wasn't for lack of trying on humanistic Turkey's part. The people of the island lived in relative peace... Until the 1950s, once again, the Greeks started their nationalistic provocations. Sure, they can come up with all their little speculative theories to deter from the real truth, like Turkey planning to have an "enosis" with Cyprus (when the idea of such union was entirely on the part of Greece; but this isn't the first time when the Orthodox clan commits the crime, and then points the finger at Turkey for having their criminal idea), and as Phallanx is disgracefully trying to present TAKISM as the reason why the troubles got started, when TAKISM was obviously a reaction to the Greeks' provocatively murderous actions.
You are not being honorable, Phallanx, by ignoring the fact that it was your fathers committing the crimes. It's not right for you to try and cover their having fired the first shot, by making it seem like the Turks were the aggressors.
Now let's get to those spam documents, and the legality of Turkey's move.
Okay, they all sound good on the surface. Turkey is one bad boy.
But here's the deal, friends. The Greeks, like the Armenians, know they are the darlings of the Christian world. They have practical free reign to do whatever mischief they want, spoiled brats that they are, in full realization that all they will get is a slap on the wrist.
The cradle-to-grave prejudices of the Western world are deeply ingrained still against the "Terrible Turk." There's still too much the Crusader mentality, and too many wars have been fought in the past centuries, against the one nation the imperialistic West has never been able to tame. The West is still approaching Turkish issues from a position of dishonesty, for example, demanding the Turks recognize a false Armenian genocide as the price for entering the EU.
The left, since the days of Gladstone still thinking of the Turks as a "human cancer," wholeheartedly accepts the line that the Turks are still the savage barbarians. I'm not saying the Turks are always angels -- no people are -- but the human rights groups, peopled by those with a liberal and compassionate mindset, are quick to acknowledge these charges of barbarism at face value, and single the Turks out with disproportionate zeal. Kurds who claim they are escaping injustice? Come on in, Europe welcomes you with open arms. We all know how evil those Turks can be.
In this atmosphere where the Greeks, Armenians, and others who make it their passion to spread their hatred, "Christian" Europe and America easily swallow the propaganda... especially when the Turks are too clueless and powerless to know how to counter effectively, P.R. always being their weak point. The Christian world easily accepts the deceitful claims, because such claims fit in well with their comfort zones and beliefs.
The first of Phallanx's spam contributions was a wonderful little decision by "the European Court of Human Rights." After they exclusively considered their darling Greeks' perspective, holding the Turks guilty on every count, one has but to wonder whether the judges... Swedish, French, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Czech, Luxemburger, Slovenian, Croatian, Irish, Macedonian, Moldovan, Latvian, Russian, members of incredibly Turk-friendly countries, would have done more than yawn had Turkey not intervened, and Sampson would have been able to go through his extermination plan.
Such is the hypocrisy of these groups such as "the European Court of Human Rights," who primarily consider the rights of the humans they deem most valuable. If they're not going to be able to deal a fair hand, why should anyone with true honor listen to them? For example: Regarding "Home and property of displaced persons," did this court look equally to the displaced from the Turkish side? I'll bet not; Turkish lives are not as important.
Armenia, with the help of 1.5 billion in Russian military aid and millions lobbied from the pockets of American taxpayers, pulled off a surprise attack in 1992. They have occupied Karabakh, displacing scores of Azeris. Despite a few token U.N. condemnations, where are the voices of outrage from the Christian community? There is none, because Azeri Turkic lives are not as important. (Quite the contrary, the "Christian Club" in the form of the Minsk Group Fact-Finding Mission, quite recently -- and incredibly -- found Azerbaijan as the aggressor, and poor Armenia as the innocent victim. Same old story.)
(In America, victim Azerbaijan got penalized and villain Armenia got rewarded. No differently than in 1974, when the powerful Greek lobby and the prejudices of American politicians enabled the USA to penalize Turkey with its arms embargo.)
The 1996 European Parliament Resolution. Same types of findings. The poor Greeks are always the innocent victims. Never mind that they fired the first shot.
The 1987 Commission of Human Rights. Same bunch of hypocrites.
There's a Nov. 2000 declaration from something called "Unilateral Declaration of Independence," (UDI) the origins of which I didn't first understand. But given its extremely hostile language, I wasn't surprised to discover it apparently originates from the Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the United Nations. (As the root of the web link revealed.) What is this partisan report doing here?
Now the United Nations documents appear a little more serious. But who holds the cards at the U.N.? Again, it's the Christian club, with very short memories. Here is the legitimacy of the U.N., from a 1999 article excerpt by former British Parliamentarian, Michael Stephen, responding to those who have completely overlooked the recent history of the island:
On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that "UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances. ...it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."
The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year that "although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of << enosis >> and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective." The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of <<enosis, >> in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly promote union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect).
Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights." In an interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots." The United Nations not only failed to condemn the forceable usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor upon Britain, nor the other countries who have acquiesced.
There you have it; the legitimacy of the United Nations. They totally didn't care about the Treaty of Guarantee, because Turkish lives just aren't important.
If your judge is completely on the side of one party and ignores the other's rights, we call that a "kangaroo court." Even if this court derives from a seemingly prestigious organization such as the United Nations, why should such a dishonest attitude be held legitimate?
Look at the nonsense from these documents. Regarding missing persons, I'm not saying people did not lost their lives unfairly at the hands of the Turks, no differently than many Iraqi civilians keep getting killed with the United States invasion. (In my country, we only read about American lives lost, because Muslim lives are just not important.) This is the ugly consequence of war, in this case, a war that was not started by the Turks.
But the missing persons issue appears also to be a blown-up affair. As the Stephen article went on to tell us:
On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."
The (South) CYPRUS MAIL gave us a clear indication of this phenomenon. In October 27, 1995, they posted a piece entitled, THE TRUTH IS OUT? Below is the beginning excerpt:
So now the truth is out. We are not talking about 300 dead, or 45 dead, but 96 people killed during action in 1974 and that is only from an initial examination of 487 files out of 1,619 examined at the Attorney General s office.
Successive governments have a lot to answer to. First, why these people were put on the list of missing people in the first place., and why, now that the truth is out, relatives are not put to rest once and for all on the fate of their loved ones.
News of the existence of dead persons on the list was made public more than a month ago, a fact officially confirmed by President Clerides before his departure for the United States three weeks ago.
And for all this time, 1,619 families have been virtually sitting on hot coals wondering whether one of the numbers bandied about so nonchalantly concerns a person they haven t seen or heard for 21 years.
As a result of these findings, the Greek Cypriot administration lowered the toll of the missing from 1,619 to 1,493. I don't know what this number has been lowered to in the interim, since shocking new revelations kept getting published in the Greek Cypriot press regarding the Greek Cypriot missing persons.
The bad boy Turks kept getting blamed; the culprits turned out to be mostly Greek. But the biased West did not care. The biased West still does not care.
Finally, let's turn to the legality of the 1974 Turkish move.
Because of their fanatical nationalism, the Greek-Cypriots have been engaging in bloody massacres of their Turkish counterparts since the 1950s. The situation got so desperate, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain enacted the 1960 "Treaty of Guarantee." As the title implies, the treaty guarantees the right of the two minorities on the island.
Should one of the minorities get threatened by the other, the "mother countries" of both minorities were granted the legal right to come in and intervene.
That is what this treaty was about, enacted solely as a reaction against murderous Greek actions.
When 1974 rolled around, and the forces of Makarios and Sampson were at each other's throats, every Turkish-Cypriot knew the fate awaiting them. They did not need Sampson's admission of extermination plans seven years later.
Turkey did not invade the island. Turkey exercised her legal right to intervene.
Had Turkey not done so, there would have been no Turks left on the island. I realize that makes you Greek boys giddy with delight, but if you try and go down deep, and listen to your human hearts, you will realize that would not have been the moral action.
So all of these biased reports Phallanx posted are based on a foundation of lies and anti-Turkish prejudice. How do we know the move was a legal one? How do we know that Spartakus was partakusing in falsehood when he told us, "The situation is that a foreign state,Turkey, invaded illlegaly to another state..."?
Why, what better source to listen to than the Athens Court of Appeal? Its decision of March 21, 1979 read as follows:
"The Turkish intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the London-Zurich agreements, was legal. Turkey had, as one of the Guarantor Powers, the right to fulfill her obligation. The true guilty ones were the Greek Officers, who organised the coup and thereby created the conditions for an intervention."
Now why doesn't the U.N., the European Parliament, the Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and certainly the Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the United Nations listen to the Athens court decision? We all know the answer to that question, gentlemen... and the answer has nothing to do with history, nor legality, nor morality.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum