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.

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

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

Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

• a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;
• a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;
• a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Home and property of displaced persons

• a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;
• a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;
• a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

• a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;
• a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;
• a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;
• a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;
• a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;
• a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;
• a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

• a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

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

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

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

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

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.

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),
Bo�tjan Zupančič (Slovenian),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
John Hedigan (Irish),
Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia),
Tudor Panţ�ru (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.

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

The allegations concerned the following issues:

(a) Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

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

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

(b) Home and property of displaced persons

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

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

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

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

Cyprus alleged, among other things, violations in relation to Turkish Cypriots who are opponents of the "TRNC" r�gime 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.

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

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

As to Turkey�s denial of liability under the Convention for the allegations made against it, the Court held, by sixteen votes to one, that the facts complained of in the application fell within the "jurisdiction" of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and therefore entailed the respondent State�s responsibility under the Convention. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that such a finding was consistent with its earlier statements in its Loizidou v. 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 Turkey�s responsibility under the Convention could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials operating in northern Cyprus but was also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration ("the TRNC"), which survived by virtue of Turkish military and other support.

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

(a) Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Home and property of displaced persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Right of displaced Greek Cypriots to hold elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

 >>

RESOLUTION 37/253 (1983)

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

RESOLUTION 550 (1984)

Adopted by the Security Council 
on 11 May 1984

The Security Council,

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

RESOLUTION 370 (1975)

Adopted by the Security Council 
on 13 June 1975

The Security Council,

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

RESOLUTION 358 (1974)

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

RESOLUTION 193 (1964)

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

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.