1. THE LEGAL ASPECT OF TURKEY’S
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST CYPRUS On July 20th 1974, Turkey availing herself of the coup of the 15th July 1974, took military action against the independent and sovereign Republic of Cyprus, equal member of the United Nations Organization. The Turkish Government had then proclaimed that this action was “a peace operation”, aiming at the restoration of the constitutional order in the island, which was disturbed by the coup against the legal Government of Cyprus.
The Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Ecevit, in announcing the above-mentioned military action, stated that the Turkish armed forces came to Cyprus to bring peace, and that this action had been taken by Turkey in her capacity as co-guarantor power, under the Treaty of Guarantee, signed by the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, as part of the agreements establishing the Republic of Cyprus.
Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee provides that:
“in the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. The Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Ecevit flew to London a couple of days before July the 20th 1974, and urged the British Government to take joint action in Cyprus, under article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee. Following Premier Ecevit’s insistence, a meeting was fixed to be held some time during the week commencing on July the 22nd, with a view to discussing the matter. Greece had also been invited to attend the meeting. The consultations provided under article IV of the above Treaty had not even been officially started, when Turkey, in total disregard of the provisions of article IV, took unilateral action in Cyprus, early on the morning of the 20th July 1974.
If so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible each of the three guaranteeing powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty”.
Even if Turkey’s allegations, that she had the right to take unilateral action under the above-mentioned article of the Treaty, could be accepted, her sole aim should have been the re-establishment of the state of affairs, established by the Treaty. Instead of this, Turkey has through military force occupied about 40% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, thus violating the independence and territorial integrity of the State and commiting an international crime, contrary to international law.
Furthermore, Turkey had unilaterally proclaimed the establishment of a puppet “autonomous administration” in the occupied part of Cyprus, propped up by the military power of the Turkish occupying forces. Turkey’s efforts to establish an autonomous administration in the occupied north of Cyprus was, of course, a part of her plan for turning the de facto occupation into de jure and partitioning the unified, sovereign, independent State of the Republic of Cyprus into two different States. These actions are in contravention to article 195.1 of the Cyprus Constitution, which provides that “the territory of the Republic is one and indivisible”, and the respect of which Turkey had guaranteed. It must be stressed that such actions are also contrary to the United Nations Charter and, generally, the international law.
Turkey’s intention to destroy the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus is proved, inter alia, by the continuation of military operations by Turkish troops in Cyprus, after the time fixed for the cessation of hostilities by the United Nations Security Council. This behavior was in flagrant violation of the Security Council’s resolutions of the 20th and 23rd July 1974, under which the Council demanded an immediate end of foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus and requested the withdrawal without delay of all foreign military personnel.
The following facts show the escalation of the Turkish military operations and at the same time constitute indisputable evidence of Turkey’s real intentions:
* By 1600 hours of the 22nd July 1974, (time fixed for the cease fire by resolution 353of the Security Council) the Turkish armed forces had occupied 1.70% of the Republic’s territory. It must be added that Turkey’s intention for the creation of two autonomous and homogeneous zones in Cyprus had clearly been shown at the Geneva conference. The Turkish Foreign Minister demanded at the night meeting of the 13th August 1974 an immediate answer to Turkey’s proposals for a geographical partition, an allocation of 34% of the territory of the Republic to a Turkish Cypriot autonomous administration, and the formation of a federation between the two autonomous zones. The Greek Cypriot and Greek sides asked for a 36-hour recess in order to consider the Turkish proposals and have an exchange of views with their advisers. The request was accepted by the British Foreign Minister. However, the Turkish Foreign Minister turned it down and asked that the conference be considered as having come to an end. A few hours later the Turkish armed forces were advancing towards the town of Famagusta, ignoring the cease fire agreement and the United Nations resolutions.
* By the 30th July 1974 (date of the Geneva Declaration signed by the Foreign Minister of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom) Turkey, by extending her occupation, had put under her control 3.74% of the Cyprus territory.
* Following Turkey’s ultimatum at the Geneva conference, during the night meeting of the 13th August 1974, the Turkish troops further extended their occupation to over 34.10% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
* Even after the agreed time for cease fire, at 1800 hours of the 16th August 1974, and in spite of the resolutions of the Security Council, the Turkish armed invading forces continued their advance thus putting under their occupation about 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
It is quite obvious that such actions were not in any way aiming at the restoration of the constitutional order in Cyprus. The Turkish military operation in Cyprus, under the above described circumstances, constitutes a flagrant aggression within the meaning of this expression as given by the definition adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, in November 1974. According to article 1 of the said definition:
“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition.” Specific types of action listed as acts of aggression include invasion or attack by armed forces against territory of another State, or any military occupation resulting from such attack, or any annexation of territory by the use of force, as well as bombardment or use of any weapons against the territory of another state.
The relevant resolution also states that no consideration of whatever nature, whether political economic, military or otherwise may serve as a justification for aggression. It must be pointed out that the aggressive war is considered as a crime under the concept of international criminal law and especially as a crime against peace and/or humanity. It is interesting to mention that aggression is also considered as an international crime against humanity by the recently adopted statute of the Permanent International Criminal Court.
It is, of course, internationally accepted that the universal community has the duty to prevent and immediately terminate any act of aggression. This duty finds its expression in taking collective measures against the aggressor, provided under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
Furthermore, it is quite interesting to mention Wright’s theory about how the aggressor can be defined by applying the “provisional orders method”. According to this method, when an international instrument orders a cease-fire, after a conflict has commenced, the party who refuses to cease-fire … must be considered as an aggressor ( The Prevention of Aggression, American Journal of International Law, Volume 50,1956, p.519).
Given the above method, even if Turkey’s military action in Cyprus was not to be considered prima facie as an aggression, her repeated refusal to comply with the United nations resolutions, calling for a cease fire, constitute a flagrant aggression, and collective international measures should have been taken for its termination.
2. BREACH OF PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY TURKEY. As a result of the Turkish aggression against Cyprus, and the continuing occupation of the northern part of the island by Turkish armed forces, the Government of Cyprus has been prevented from exercising any form of control, power or authority, in respect of the areas under Turkish occupation. No movement is allowed by the Turkish occupying forces, to and from the occupied areas, either for Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented from applying the laws of the State over the occupied areas. Furthermore, the courts of the Republic are prevented from applying justice in the said areas.
Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, dealing with the laws and customs of war on land reads as follows:
“The authority of the power of the State having passed de facto into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall do all in his power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, respecting at the same time, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” The Greek Cypriot inhabitants of the occupied areas were forcibly expelled from their homes. Their properties were distributed among the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish mainland settlers who were brought to Cyprus by Turkey. The Greek Cypriot population has been prevented from enjoying the natural resources of the occupied areas, while a considerable number of industrial, agricultural and touristic units situated in these areas were closed down. Several of them were looted and/or destroyed, while some others are exploited by the Turks to their benefit.
Article 46 of the Hague Regulations provides that:
“Family honor and rights, individual lives, and private property, as well as religious convictions and worship must be respected. Private property may not be confiscated”. The Greek Cypriot population of the northern part of Cyprus was inhumanly treated by the Turkish armed forces, during and after the invasion of the island. Murder, rape of women and young girls, torture, enforced prostitution, etc. were committed by the Turkish troops.
Article 27 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, provides the following:
“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanly treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Pillaging and other acts of violence to private property belonging to the State under occupation are prohibited. Reference is made to such actions committed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In the judgment delivered by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal these actions were considered as crimes:
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault”.
“ In the present case it has been proved that the countries occupied by Germany became the object of exploitation in order to promote German military aims in the most relentless way without taking into consideration the local economy but in order to achieve a pre-conceived plan and policy”. In the case of Cyprus the exploitation of the Greek Cypriot’s properties by Turkey is considered “legal”. Refer for example to decision No. 7380 (7.10.1975) of Denktash’s so called “Council of Ministers”, under which the exploitation of the Dome Hotel, in Kyrenia has been allocated to the Evkaf office, while the homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots who were forcibly fled to the free areas were “given” to the Turkish mainland settlers who were illegally transferred to the occupied areas of Cyprus.
Turkey had no right of intermeddling with private movable or immovable property in the areas of Cyprus under her occupation. Such intermeddling constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of conventional and customary international law. It also violates fundamental human rights guaranteed by international conventions, such as article 1 of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The Geneva Conventions (in which the Hague Regulations were included) were ratified both by the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey.
The above-mentioned articles and a considerable number of other provisions of international law were violated by Turkey, through her armed forces and/or the puppet “administration” set up in the occupied areas of Cyprus. Turkey’s actions were and still are in contravention to the United Nations Charter. Reference must also be made to Turkey’s complete disregard of the U.N. General Assembly’s and Security Council’s resolutions on Cyprus.
It is considered necessary to point out that in the “Hostages Trial” ( United States V. Wilhelm List and other ), the American Tribunal in Nuremberg observed that international law makes no distinction between a lawful occupant in dealing with the respective duties of occupant and population, and whether the invasion was lawful or criminal is not an important part for consideration on this subject. The effect of the occupation is to confer on the occupant not the sovereignty of the occupied territory, but only a restricted power of purely military administration for the purpose of maintaining order and the preservation of his armed forces.
It is quite clear from what was mentioned in this first part of the study that:
* Turkey’s military action in Cyprus constitutes an aggression and therefore the United Nations have the right and the duty to take effective measures for its termination, under chapter VII of the Charter. It is interesting to mention some extracts from the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (case of Loizidou vs. Turkey):
* Turkey’s continuing occupation of a part of the territory of Cyprus, apart from constituting in itself an aggression, violates at the same time a considerable number of provisions and principles of international law.
* The creation of a Turkish autonomous “administration” in the occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus is in contravention to the provisions of international law and is, therefore, null and void, since the Republic of Cyprus preserves the sovereignty of the occupied territory, though prevented temporarily from exercising its power and control over this territory.
* Turkey’s aggression against Cyprus is an international crime which violates international law, the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act on Security and Co-operation in Europe and a considerable number of multilateral Conventions and Agreements. As such, it cannot be solved through negotiations between the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot Communities of Cyprus. It can only be solved within the framework of the United Nations Charter, through the application of its appropriate procedures.
Turkish armed forces of more than 30,000 personnel are stationed throughout the whole of the occupied area of northern Cyprus, which is constantly patrolled and has checkpoints on all main lines of communication. The Army's headquarters are in Kyrenia. The 28th Infantry Division is based in Asha (Assia) with its sector covering Famagusta to the Mia Milia suburb of Nicosia and with about 14,500 personnel. The 39th Infantry Division, with about 15,500 personnel, is based at Myrtou village, and its sector ranges from Yerolakkos Village to Lefka. TOURDYK (Turkish Forces in Cyprus under the Treaty of Guarantee) is stationed at Orta Keuy village near Nicosia, with a sector running from Nicosia International Airport to the Pedhieos River. A Turkish Naval Command and outpost are based at Famagusta and Kyrenia respectively. Turkish Airforce personnel are based at Lefkoniko, Krini and other airfields. The Turkish Airforce is stationed on the Turkish mainland at Adana. As a result, the unilaterally proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” is null and void and no Turkish Cypriot “government” or any form of governmental administration can be legally exist in the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus.
The Turkish Forces and all civilians entering military areas are subject to Turkish military courts, stipulated so far as concerns "TRNC citizens" by the Prohibited Military Areas Decree of 1979 (section?9) and Article 156 of the Constitution of the "TRNC".
It is obvious from the large number of troops engaged in active duties in northern Cyprus that Turkish army exercises effective overall control there. In the circumstances of the case, this entails Turkey's responsibility for policies and actions of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Thus, denial to applicant of access to her property in northern Cyprus falls within Turkey's "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention and is imputable to Turkey.
The Court’s judgment was founded on the interpretation based on the international legal order created by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and other international bodies. Therefore, the Court has taken under consideration specific resolutions of such bodies. Here are some extracts from such resolutions:
The United Nations Security Council.
On 18 November 1983, in response to the proclamation of the establishment of the "TRNC", the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 541 (1983) which provides, where relevant, as follows:
"The Security Council ... Resolution 550 (1984), adopted on 11 May 1984, in response to the exchange of "ambassadors" between Turkey and the "TRNC" stated inter alia:
1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;
2. Considers the declaration ... as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal; ...
6. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;
7. Calls upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus."
"The Security Council ... The European Community:
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..."
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
In November 1983, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided that it continued to regard the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus and called for the respect of the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus.
On 16 November 1983 the European Communities issued the following statement:
"The ten Member States of the European Community are deeply concerned by the declaration purporting to establish a 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' as an independent State. They reject this declaration, which is in disregard of successive resolutions of the United Nations. The Ten reiterate their unconditional support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. They continue to regard the Government of President Kyprianou as the sole legitimate Government of the Republic of Cyprus. They call upon all interested parties not to recognize this act, which creates a very serious situation in the area." The Commonwealth
The Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in New Delhi from 23-29 November 1983, issued a press communique stating, inter alia, as follows:
"[The] Heads of Government condemned the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 to create a secessionist state in northern Cyprus, in the area under foreign occupation. Fully endorsing Security Council Resolution 541, they denounced the declaration as legally invalid and reiterated the call for its non-recognition and immediate withdrawal. They further called upon all states not to facilitate or in any way assist the illegal secessionist entity. They regarded this illegal act as a challenge to the international community and demanded the implementation of the relevant UN Resolutions on Cyprus." In this respect it is evident from international practice and the various, strongly worded resolutions referred to above, that the international community does not regard the "TRNC" as a State under international law and that the Republic of Cyprus has remained the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus - itself, bound to respect international standards in the field of the protection of human and minority rights, thus
B. PARTICULARS OF THE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1. MISSING PERSONS.
Since the end of the hostilities in Cyprus, in 1974, the fate of 1619 Greek Cypriots remains unknown. The above number of missing persons includes members of the Cyprus National Guard and civilians, among whom there are females and children.
There is undisputed evidence that most of the missing persons were seen after the end of the hostilities alive, in the hands of the Turks. There is also evidence that a number of the prisoners who were transferred to Turkish prisons were never released and their names are listed in the catalogues of missing persons. Some of the said evidence is given herebelow:
(a) In conformity with an agreement for the exchange of students, the Turkish side produced lists with the names of the students whom they were to release on the 6th, 7th and 8th of November 1974. They included 138 persons, six of whom were never released. It should be added that Turkey continues to refuse to cooperate within the framework of the special committee established by the United Nations with a view to investigating the fate of the missing persons.
(b) On the 18th of January 1975 UNFICYP’s humanitarian service supplied the Turks wit a list of 114 stranded students (document No. OPS/4405, HQ UNFICYP). The Turks replied that they had already released twelve of them. In fact, only nine out of the twelve were actually released. The remaining three are still missing. With regard to the same list, the Turks gave no information as to the fate of another forty six persons. Thus 49 out of 114 stranded students listed by UNFICYP, are still missing.
(c) The NEWS BULLETIN which is issued by the so-called “Turkish authorities”, in its issue of the 4th September 1974 (No. 2903), published a photograph showing Greek Cypriot prisoners of war being visited by the Red Crescent. Three persons who are shown in the photograph and were recognized by their relatives have not yet been released.
(d) In several issues of the Turkish magazine “HAYAT” a series of photographs showing Greek Cypriot prisoners were published. Some persons shown in these photographs were identified by their relatives but they have not been released yet.
(e) In many other photographs taken by Turkish and foreign reporters, published in the local as well as in the foreign press, Greek Cypriot prisoners are shown under custody of the Turkish troops or in Turkish prison-camps. Several persons shown in these photographs were identified by their relatives but they have never been released.
(f) Several Greek Cypriot prisoners have spoken over the Turkish Cypriot illegal radio station “BAYRAK”. These persons were identifying themselves in order to convey messages to their relatives about their well being. Some of them were never released.
(g) Released Greek Cypriot prisoners have stated under oath that while they were in Turkish prisons they were together with other Greek Cypriot prisoners who have never been released.
References of Turkey’s continuing negative attitude in respect of the missing persons are made in the reports of the United Nations Secretary-General S/12222 of 30.10.1976 (para.10), S/12253 of 9.12.1976 (para.48 and 49) and S/12342 of 7.6.1977 (para.32). Furthermore, the United Nations General Assembly had adopted resolution 3450 (XXX) of 9th December 1975, by which, “reaffirming the basic human need of families in Cyprus to be informed about missing relatives … requests the Secretary – General to exert every effort in close co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross in assisting the tracing and accounting for missing persons as a result of armed conflict in Cyprus”. Similar resolutions were adopted during the following years but there was no positive response by Turkey.
Turkey’s refusal to give any information about the fate of the missing persons and her negative attitude in respect of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, constitutes a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights.
2. UPROOTING OF PERSONS FROM THEIR HOMES AND PROPERTIES
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ENCLAVED PERSONS.
As a result of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, about 200.000 persons have been displaced from their homes and properties, situated in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus. All these persons are still refugees, living in Government constructed low-cost houses, a few miles from their homes.
Turkey refuses to comply with United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions calling for “urgent measures to facilitate the voluntary return of all refugees to their home in safety and to settle all other aspects of the refugees problem” (Resolutions: 361 (1974) of the Security Council, 3212 (1974) of the General Assembly, endorsed by resolution 365 (1974) of the Security Council, 367 (1975) of the Security Council, 370 (1975 of the Security Council, 3395 (1975) of the General Assembly, 383 (1975) of the Security Council, 391 (1976) of the Security Council, 31/12 (1976) of the General Assembly, 401 (1976) of the Security Council, 410 (1977) of the Security Council, 414 (1977) of the Security Council, 35/15 (1977) of the General Assembly, 422 (1977) of the Security Council and many others).
Instead of implementing the said resolutions, Turkish officials have repeatedly made declarations against the return of the refugees to their homes. Reference is made, for example, to the statement made to that effect by the then Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey Mr. Erbakan, in February 1977 and April 1977. Reference is also made to a relevant statement made by the Turkish Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Demirel, in the middle of October 1977. Such statements were periodically repeated throughout the years up to date.
There are several indications that the displacement of the Greek Cypriot population from the occupied areas of Cyprus was a part of the plan for the partition of the island. It is because of the existence of this plan that Turkey continues to use even to-day, inhuman methods to uproot the few hundred of Greek-Cypriots who have remained in the occupied areas.
The Turkish occupying forces are using, inter alia, the following methods in order to expel the remaining Greek Cypriots in the occupied areas of Cyprus:
1. They impose night curfew. Lefkou Demetri, an old woman, aged 65, from Vathylakas village, was another victim of rape on 1.6.1976. On 11.8.1976, Charalambos Agapiou, a paralytic aged 63, of Eptakomi village, was murdered by a Turkish settler after being robbed of the monthly social insurance allowance just received by him.
2. The “Turkish authorities” prohibit any movement of the Greek Cypriots outside their villages, unless they obtain special permission from the “authorities”, which is given very rarely.
3. The Greek Cypriots are prohibited to go to their fields.
4. UNFICYP troops cannot talk or communicate in any way with the Greek Cypriots, except in the presence of a member or representative of the Turkish forces.
5. There is insufficient medical treatment, while Greek Cypriot doctors have not been allowed to visit the enclaved Greek Cypriots.
6. The Greek Cypriots living in the occupied areas are not allowed to undertake commercial transactions or carry on any profession, trade or business. They depend mainly on the financial aid and other support sent to them by the Cyprus Government, through UNFICYP.
7. No Greek Cypriot secondary school teachers have been allowed to go and render their services in the occupied areas. All elementary schools have been closed and, consequently, those Greek Cypriots in need of education are forced to leave the Turkish occupied areas, in order to attend schools functioning in the Government controlled areas.
8. Enclaved Greek Cypriot teacher Eleni Foka has been physically attacked by agents of the Turkish Cypriot occupation regime and suffered minor injuries as she tried to return to her home in the occupied Karpass peninsula. According to a police statement, Foka, who was travelling on a bus with a number of enclaved persons wishing to return to their homes in the occupied part of Cyprus, was manhandled by Turkish Cypriot "police" at the Ledra Palace checkpoint in Nicosia. The teacher was forced to return to the government-controlled areas where she was taken to Nicosia General Hospital for treatment.
The police statement said Foka's injuries included scratches to her left wrist and little finger and bruises to her left upper arm. Being a teacher for the enclaved Greek Cypriot elementary school pupils since the Turkish aggression against the island in 1974, she returned to the government-controlled areas in May for medical treatment with the help of the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). Since then, Turkey has been refusing to allow her to return to her home in the Karpass peninsula, located in the northeastern part of the island. UNFICYP Spokesman Waldemar Rokoszewski has said the UN supports Foka's right to return home. The European Union Council of Ministers has deplored the denial by Turkey's occupation force in northern Cyprus of permission to enclaved Greek-Cypriot teacher Eleni Foka to return home to her village, Ayia Triada, after receiving medical treatment in the Republic.
9. All forms of direct physical violence have been used against the enclaved persons. For example, a young girl aged 14 was raped by Turks on 3.10.1976 in the presence of her father, who was at the same time assaulted, beaten up, and robbed. (The information was included in an official UN confidential document).
The enclaved Greek Cypriots continue to be the victims of the above inhuman behavior, and this fact is supported by reports of the United Nations and other international bodies. In fact, the 450 Greek Cypriots (out of an original total of over 20.000) who are still living in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus are still a cause for concern.
The movement of UNFICYP itself is restricted in the occupied areas and this was stated by the United Nations Secretary-General in his reports S/12253 of 9.12.1976 (paragraph 42) and S/12342 OF 7.6.1977 (paragraph 28). The relevant extracts read as follows : « … noting that the freedom of movement of the UNFICYP and its Civil Police is still restricted in the north of the island…” and “As a result of these restrictions, UNFICYP has been unable to contribute in any effective way to the welfare, well-being and security of the Greek Cypriots in the north except for the supply of material items and distribution of social welfare benefits”.
3. DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTIES, CHURCHES, MONUMENTS ETC.
There is enough evidence that various incidents of wanton destruction of properties, belonging to Greek Cypriots, in the occupied areas, was carried out by Turkish troops, or Turkish mainlanders, acting with the authority and/or support of the Turkish army. John Fielding, a T.V. correspondent who had visited the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus reports (The Guardian, 6.5.1976):
“The vandalism and desecration are so methodical and so widespread that they amount to institutionalized obliteration of everything sacred to a Greek…” According to several statements made by Greek Cypriots expelled from the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus as well as by foreign journalists and others and according also to several reports of UNFICYP, many destructions of properties are listed. Some examples are given herebelow:
“We visited 26 former Greek villages. Only four churches from that number could be described as being in decent condition. We found not a single undesecrated graveyard.
“… En route, in the mountains to the south, we found the chapel of Ayios Dometios at Ardhana empty but for the remains of the altar plinth, and that was fouled with human excrement.”
“At Syngrasis, the church interior was smashed beyond recognition, littered with the remains of icons, pews, and beer bottles. The broken crucifix was drenched in urine”.
“We found perhaps the most upsetting sight at the tiny Antiphonitis Monastery, miles up an unmade track in the fragrant pines of the Pentadaktylos Mountains. Doors were battered in, eleventh and twelfth century treasures looted, fifteenth century frescoes plastered with asbestos cement, the newer icons smashed, fires had been lit, and the floor was strewn with bottles and filth…”
(a) Destruction of houses: Several were destroyed in Pyrga village of Famagusta district, in September 1976. Destruction of houses also occurred in Afentika village in July 1977. According to the basic provisions of international law the properties of the indigenous population in occupied areas must be respected by the occupying power. Furthermore, in the modern theories concerning the unarmed population in the case of a war, it is clear enough that any destruction of properties is strictly prohibited, and any such action is considered as a war crime and/or a crime against humanity.
(b) Destruction of orange groves: In Morphou area, in October 1976, several orange groves were uprooted in order to be replaced with vines. The reason was that the Turkish settlers who were illegally given Greek Cypriot properties in the area did not know anything about orange groves, while they had some experience in vines.
(c) Destruction of churches: The Greek Orthodox churches in the following villages were destroyed: Vathylakas village, Ayia Anna of Koma-tou-Yialou, Apsidiotissa of Sichari village, Apostolos Andreas of Neapolis, the church of the Virgin at Katokopia, the churches of Lefkoniko and Eptakomi. (The above mentioned churches are given as an example. Many other churches were destroyed).
(d) Destruction of graveyards: Practically all the graveyards in the Turkish occupied areas were destroyed. Tombs gaped open while crosses bearing the pictures of those buried beneath had been flattened and destroyed.
(e) Destruction of monuments: Ancient monuments, samples of the island’s civilization and history, were destroyed by the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers. Several pieces of antiquities have been sold abroad.
Since February 1975 a great number of Turks were illegally brought from Turkey, mainly from the Eastern part of the country, in an attempt to change the demographic character of Cyprus.
In July 1975, Mr. Wechman, United Nations Representative in Cyprus, sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General, Dr. Waldheim, informing him that “several hundred mainland Turks are being transferred each week from Turkey and are settling in Karpass villages and villages south of the new Famagusta-Nicosia road”.
According to several statements made by Turkish Cypriots and according to reliable information, the Turkish settlers are coming from Anatolia, Alexandretta, the Black Sea area and from areas that have been destroyed by earth-quakes. An office was set up by the Turkish Government in Mersin to facilitate their transfer.
The homes and properties in the occupied areas belonging to the Greek Cypriot refugees, have been distributed among the Turks from Turkey, as well as among the Turkish Cypriots who hae been forcibly transferred by their leaders to the Turkish occupied areas from their homes and properties in the Government controlled area, in 1975. The mainland Turks were given the status of “Turkish Cypriot citizen” under the so-called “citizenship” of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.
Halkin Sesi, a Turkish Cypriot daily, reports in its edition of 13th April, 1977:
“The inhabitants of the village of Guvencinlik (The Greek name of the village is Acheritou) are mainland Turks despite the fact that all of them are in possession of documents showing that they are Turkish Cypriots. They stick to their mainland traditions and beliefs which are not Cypriot”. In May 1976 the Swedish contigent of the UNFICYP gave the following report, concerning the condition in the area of the Karpass peninsula:
“One year ago the Greek Cypriot population lived in 30 locations and 21 of these were more or less solely Greek populated. Today they are living in 23 locations but in all these places Turkish Cypriots and Turkish Nationals have settled. It is very hard to estimate how many they are, especially the Turkish Cypriots. However, we estimate that not more than 1,500 Turkish Nationals are living in villages where Greek Cypriots remain”. The Turkish settler, Usuf Veli Akyuz, who comes from the village of Kalyan Cayrle in the district of Macka in the Turkish province of Trebizond, was serving as a solider in the occupied area of Cyprus. He deserted to the Government controlled area and gave himself up to the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, in June 1978. In a voluntary statement, Veli Akyuz described the procedure under which the Government of Turkey induces Turkish people to come to Cyprus. He also described briefly the situation in the occupied part of Cyprus:
“After the invasion of Cyprus, Ecevit sent a notice to the Muktar of our village, Mahmoud Yiadirin, inviting those who wished to go to Cyprus as immigrants to make the necessary application … Seventy families applied, including mine. (Note: 150 families were living in the said village). There is enough undisputed evidence about Turkey’s policy for the colonization of the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, in an attempt to change the demographic character of the island, and to establish the long desired – “homogeneous regions”. This, of course, will help the implementation of the final part of the plan for the partition of Cyprus. Turkey’s intentions concerning the change of the demographic character of Cyprus is shown clearly in an extract from the “PULSE”, an authoritative daily review of the Turkish press, published on August the 19th, 1975:
“They (the immigrants) were to be given televisions, fridges, furniture, a house and at least 50 donums of land… I heard later that other families that came with us settled in Ayia Triadha, Trikomo and Dhavlos… There are settlers all over Cyprus, from Famagusta to Morphou. Settlers are still coming from Turkey, that is, they come as tourists, and stay in Cyprus as immigrants….. The settlers are poor people and they are nearly all illiterate. There are some skilled workers but the vast majority are farmers and thieves…. The TESC Minister of the Interior wanted to send us to Turkey for training. The Turkish Commanding Officer, Hassan Saglam, did not agree with the Minister of the Interior’s proposal and ordered that we should be trained at Gulseran camp, in Famagusta.
“Before I enlisted in the army, there was a fight at a wedding in which my name became entangled. I was kept under arrest for one month. While under arrest, I was beaten and violently maltreated. I lost two teeth during the beating. The cause of the quarrel was a woman. This is one of the reasons why I decided to desert to the Greek side. Also because of the oppression and barbarism in the army which was unbearable. Another reason was the high cost of living”.
“The Turkish Cypriot population will reach 200,000 by the end of the year and time will see to the population equalization process. What is more, another twelve years will not be required. Months will suffice, and the size will determine the percentage in the Federal Republic of Cyprus, not vice versa”. The continuing systematic operation for the colonization of the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus by Turkey, shows disregard to the provisions of the United Nations resolution 3395 (1975) by which all parties were urged to refrain from unilateral actions, including changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus, and which was reaffirmed by the subsequent resolution 31/12 (1976) of 16.11.1976.
he said operation for the colonization of northern Cyprus is against the last paragraph of article 49 of the Geneva Convention IV of the 12th August 1949, which reads as follows:
“The occupying power shall not depend or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. Such prohibition is also included in the convention establishing the Permanent International Criminal Court and any violation of the relevant provision is considered as being a crime against humanity. The illegal Turkish settlers in the occupied part of Cyprus constitute a major issue in the efforts towards achieving a just solution to the Cyprus problem.
It is alleged by the various "mediators" that their presence is turned to be a humanitarian one, because of the fact that they live in Cyprus for so long and that their children were borne in Cyprus.
It has to be stressed that no right can be created from an illegal situation. The Turkish settlers were illegally brought to the occupied areas of Cyprus and they are still and will be illegal, irrespective of the time of their presence or their personal or family situation.
But even if we were to face the issue on a purely humanitarian basis, we have the rights of the legitimate inhabitants vs. the artificially created "rights" of the settlers. Who says that those rights of the settlers are stronger than the rights of the Cypriot people?
5. OPPRESSION OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS.
As a result of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the continuing occupation of the northern part of the island, the rights and freedoms of the Turkish Cypriots were, and still are, violated.
According to several statements made by Turkish Cypriots who, either escaped from the Turkish occupied areas to the Government controlled areas or talked to foreign journalists, the Turkish armed forces have complete and exclusive control on the areas in question. Inspite of the efforts made by Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership to persuade the foreign Governments and, generally, the world public opinion that there is a “democratically elected administration” in northern Cyprus, the fact is that all the powers, military, political, executive, even judicial, are in the hands of the occupying forces, acting in the exercise of authority given to them by Turkey. Denktash’s “administration” acts within the framework of the authority and power which the “security needs” permit.
The Turkish Cypriot population is bitterly disappointed by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and this disappointment is shown in several articles and statements, which have been appeared in the Turkish Cypriot press.
Since the appearance of the Turkish settlers in the occupied areas of Cyprus, criminality has been increased. The victims of this criminality are the Turkish Cypriots who realize with astonishment that the occupying forces and the Denktash’s regime tolerate the criminal actions of the mainland settlers.
In May 1978, two armed Turkish settlers stopped a group of Turkish Cypriot men and women returning home from work on their tractor and they dragged one of the young girls from the tractor, into the forest and raped her. Dr. Fazil Kuchuk, the former Turkish Cypriot Vice-President of the Republic of Cyprus, wrote an article about that incident in “Halkin Sesi” on 24.5.1978 and some extracts from that article are quoted: On the following day, 25.5.1978, Dr. Fazil Kuchuk wrote another article in “Halkin Sesi”, commenting generally on the presence of the mainland settlers in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus:
“…. The incident was the product of “heroism” on the part of two persons who knew how to avail themselves of the facilities provided by the wrong and lame settlement policy being followed for the past 4 years. We have been writing for years and we have been asking the authorities to do something on this issue. Nobody heard us and as a result this paradise island has been turned into hell… We warned the officials once again. We told them that these newcomers would be a nuisance to our decent citizens: We told them to halt them before it becomes too late…. Moreover, new officials emerged who would protect these persons. They said: “You can not touch citizens of the Turkish Republic”. It meant that they would not work and we would feed and clothe them and do anything they wanted us to do. It was those who found this protection who started believing that they were perfectly legal and who strangled drivers, robed houses and exhibited unprecedented skill in theft….. The incident at Ayios Andronikos cannot be considered to be a simple police case. The Turkish Cypriots have not experienced such an incident since 1571 …. The surrender of government power to thugs can mean bringing us face to face with far more serious incidents in the future”.
“… People who are as impolite and uncivilized as to split in the face of the police should be sent back to their villages. The sooner they are sent back the sooner they will find the freedom they want and the sooner the Turkish Cypriot community … will find tranquility.” The living conditions in the occupied areas of Cyprus were also described by a statement made by the “Turkish Cypriot Patriotic Women’s Association” at the end of May 1978. The statement said that under the present disorderly state, the women in the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus” are suffering, are being exploited and derided upon more and more. The statement added that under the existing exploitation and systematic looting there could not be a prospect of happiness in the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus” for families and children.
The above-mentioned examples show that the Turkish Cypriot community lives under oppression and, on several occasions, the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots have been violated. Reference is especially made to the rights of those Turkish Cypriots who were forcibly transferred by their leaders from their homes in the free areas, to the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus.
It was stated many times by Turkish Cypriots that if the Turkish troops were to be withdrawn, all the Turkish Cypriots having their homes in the Government controlled areas, would immediately return, since they have nothing to fear from their Greek Cypriot compatriots.
The great desire of the Turkish Cypriot population to live together again with the Greek Cypriots and to work for the common progress of the Republic of Cyprus, is shown, inter alia, in a message sent by the Turkish Cypriot Students to the 5th Congress of the Pancyprian Federation of Students and Young Scientists, held in Nicosia in August 1978. Some extracts from the message are quoted herebelow:
“But days will come when all the Cypriot students will unite and under the same roof, under the same leadership and in the same organization will fight for their democratic rights, rights which have not been respected so far. This is enough evidence that Turkey, through its armed forces in Cyprus, violates the right of free movement within the territory of the State, the right of freedom of settlement, the right of owning property and many other rights of the Turkish Cypriots, insisting in her policy of artificial separation of the people of Cyprus, in order to achieve her dark aims.
“A common struggle by the students and people, Greeks and Turks, against the enemies of Cyprus is the only way to fight the beasts who are ready to massacre our small island. Only in this way will we achieve freedom, democracy and social progress in Cyprus.
“Only united we’ll be able to use our knowledge and experience for the prosperity and happiness of our island”.
6. OTHER VIOLATIONS
It can be said that all the recognized and conventionally safeguarded human rights were violated by Turkey in Cyprus. As it was proved before the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe, many crimes were committed in Cyprus by the Turkish troops, such as cold-blooded murders, rapes, enforced prostitution, torture etc.
According to several confidential United Nations documents, circulated to officers of UNFICYP in Cyprus, looting has been systematically carried out on a massive scale by the Turkish troops, the Turkish Cypriot “authorities” and the Turkish settlers, in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus.
Some United Nations documents had come into the hands of “The Times” and some extracts from them were published on 13.12.1976. Reference is made here below to certain extracts:
* Report 224 dated August 12,1975, describes how Swedish troops saw “a military lorry…. With furniture loaded from a house in Evagoras street (in Famagusta). On August 19th, 1978 the Greek Cypriot Panayiotis Vasiliou of Strovilia village, Famagusta district, visited his factory, in the Turkish occupied area, accompanied by UNFICYP troops. He found out that part of the machinery had been stolen from the factory. When he visited his factory for the first time, three years ago, nothing was missing.
* Report 265 dated October 22, 1975 says: “The general situation (of looting in Famagusta) has remained unchanged. However, a slight increase was observed in the middle of the week when 32 private lorries were seen at TK Forces HQ (Turkish Forces Headquarters) at Ayios Ioannis church.”
* “During the period May 24 to May 30, 1976, the looting activity continued in a similar manner to previous weeks.”
* Report issued on December 10, 1976 says that looting was still going on in the city. Yet the reports also suggested that the Turks, while organizing their own looting, are having to fight off freelance thieves.
The Turkish Cypriot “administration” continues to distribute to the Turkish settlers everything left behind by the Greek Cypriot refugees. This distribution had been covered under the provisions of the “legislation” endorsed by the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus”. These actions make more than clear that Turkey’s real intention is the partition of Cyprus, and of course, the separation of its people on a permanent basis.
7. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
It has repeatedly been stated above that Turkey’s atrocities in Cyprus were a part of a plan aiming at the partition of Cyprus. In fact, most of the crimes committed by Turkish troops had been organized by the Turkish leaders, in order to ensure the fleeing of the Greek Cypriot population from the occupied areas and the establishment of the de facto separation of the population of Cyprus. The second step was the “arrangement” reached at the third round of the intercommunal talks, held in Vienna in August 1975 providing for the “voluntary transfer” of those Turkish Cypriots who wished to be transferred to the occupied area, to do so.
It is clear enough that the Turkish aggressors had no intention of being bound by any agreement at the Vienna meeting. However the Turkish Government was anxious to achieve the separation of the island, by transferring all the Turkish Cypriots from the free areas of Cyprus to the occupied part of the island, thus completing the de facto geographical separation with the de facto separation of the population.
Needless to mention that the Turkish Cypriots who moved to the occupied areas of Cyprus, leaving behind their homes and properties, were forced to do so by their leaders and some extremist members of the Turkish Cypriot terrorist organization T.M.T, leader of which is, according to his own confession, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash.
The above-mentioned actions of the Turkish leadership can only be considered as a flagrant violation of the Turkish Cypriot’s basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Turkish side cannot refute the implementation of a partitive policy in Cyprus, since the implementation of such a policy can be proved from many official statements coming from the Turkish Government and Turkish Cypriot leaders, as well as from the foreign press and United Nations officials. Certain statements are mentioned here below:
* Statement by Dr. Kutchuk, leader of the political party “Cyprus is Turkish” (!) to foreign journalists on July 24, 1957: “It is a great sacrifice for Turkey to accept the partition of Cyprus because she has the right to ask for the whole island” This indisputable evidence shows that Turkey, through her armed forces and the puppet “administration” set up in the occupied part of Cyprus, is that which violates the fundamental freedoms of the Turkish Cypriot population of the island, aiming at the abolition of the independent, sovereign and unified State of the Republic of Cyprus.
* Statement by Dr. Kutchuk, on 2nd September 1957: “The Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Menteres repeated that there is no other solution for the Cyprus problem, except the partition of the island”.
* New York Times, June 16, 1958: “The British Government had applied a policy of “divide and rule”, separating the Greeks from the Turks, in spite of the fact that the two communities have lived for centuries in Cyprus in peace and understanding”.
* REUTER, February 11, 1958: Turkish demonstrators were shouting “partition or death” yesterday in Nicosia, when their leader Kutchuk said that 26 million Turks had taken the oath to ensure the partition of Cyprus.”
* AUSTRALIAN OUTLOOK, March 1957 (magazine of the Australian Institute of International Affairs): “The Turkish Government and the Turkish Cypriot leaders, Dr. Kutchuk for example, allege that the Greeks and Turks cannot live together in Cyprus and that the partition of the island is the only possible solution. Greeks and Turks were living together in Cyprus for centuries and there is no reason to assume that they cannot continue living together, in spite of the systematic intercommunal disturbances of the past year”.
* ELEFTHERIA NEWSPAPER, April 5, 1958: Turkish Cypriots went to Galinoporni village and reproached the Turkish priest (hotzas) who had prayed together with Greek Cypriot priests for termination of the drought. The Turkish Cypriot extremists reproached also the Turkish Cypriot population of the village, for having welcomed the Greek Cypriots and offered to them bread, olives and cheese, because, as they said, this behavior contradicted those who declare that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots cannot live together in peace”.
* NEW YORK TIMES, December 31, 1963: “Vice-President Fazil Kutchuk said that the Cyprus Constitution no longer exists because there was ‘no possibility’ of the Turkish and Greek communities living together on the island. Dr. Kutchuk, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, declared: “The Cyprus Constitution is dead”.
* NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, December 31,1963: When Dr. Kutchuk was asked (by reporters) if he wanted Cyprus partitioned between the Turkish minority and Greek majority, he replied: “Call it partition if you like”.
* Pulbic statement by Kemal Satir, ex Vice – President of Turkey, 1964: “Cyprus will be divided into two sections, one of which will join Turkey”.
* Statement by Erkin, ex Foreign Minister of Turkey to an Athenian newspaper in June 1964: “The radical solution ….. would be to cede one part of Cyprus to Greece and the other, closest to the Turkish Asiatic coast, to Turkey”.
* Address by Ismet Inonu, before the Turkish National Assembly, with reference to that year’s Geneva talks: “Officially, we promoted the federation concept, rather than the partition thesis, so as to remain within the provisions of the treaty”. (The Treaty of Guarantee).
* REPORT of the ex UN Secretary – General U Thant on Cyprus (11th March 1965): “The Turkish Cypriot policy of self-isolation has led the community in the opposite direction from normality. The community leadership discourages the Turkish Cypriot population from engaging in personal, commercial or other contacts with their Greek Cypriot compatriots, form applying to government offices in administrative matters or from resettling in their home villages if they are refugees”.
The vast majority of the Turkish Cypriot population do not agree with Turkey’s actions but they cannot effectively react since they also live under military occupation.
Unfortunately Turkey, implementing a long-term well organized policy makes every effort to create an anti-Greek new generation, using well-known medieval methods. An example is given here: OUR OATH “ I am an inseparable part of the great Turkish nation which has created many 20th of July. My wish is to live free – My ideology is peace – my aim is union with the mother country.
On the 20th July 1975 a victory parade was held in the Turkish occupied part of Nicosia, to mark the first anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the occupation of about 40% of Cyprus territory.
The parade was attended by a number of Turkish dignitaries, including the Turkish Vice-Premier, Turhan Feyzioglu.
During the ceremony leaflets were distributed to spectators. These leaflets published the words of an oath (ANDIMIZ=OUR OATH) and a Song (KIN=HATE). The oath and the song are given below, translated in English:
With this belief and thought, I shall hold above everything else my motherland, my nation and its independence. I shall not darken the sacred memory of our martyrs and ancestors at any time or in any situation. By overcoming all difficulties in the future – I shall become master of the Land – and will master all its problems. I give my worlds of honor that I offer myself completely to this one aim.” HATE (song) As long as vengeance fills my veins, As long as my heart beats for Turkism, As long as the word Greek exists in dictionaries, By Allah this hate will not leave me, A thousand heads of the Greeks will not wash away this hate. I’ ll crush with a stone the heads of 10.000 of them, I’ll pull out the teeth of 20.000 of them with my bare hands, I’ll throw the corpses of 30.000 of them into the water, By Allah this hate will not leave me, A thousand heads of the Greeks will not wash away this hate. As long as my fists can be raised in the air, As long as 120,000 (number of Turkish Cypriot populations) hearts can beat together, As long as 40 million (number of Turkish populations) hearts beat with mine, By Allah this hate will not leave me, A thousand heads of the Greeks will not wash away this hate.
It is sarcastic to allege that the above texts constitute an ideology, aiming at the restoration of an independent state, even if this state will take the form of a federation, as the Turkish propaganda says the universal public opinion.
Another example of Turkey’s intention to create a psychological anti-Greek feeling to the Turks, is a poem written by Musa Korkmaz and published in the official magazine of the Turkish Security Forces ‘POLIS DEGRISI” on 1st February 1978. The mere fact that the poem was published in such a magazine, is a clear sign that the ideas reflected in the poem are also adopted by the Turkish military leaders. The poem is called “YOU ARE NOW “My Cyprus, in the morning of July 20, bayonets of Mehmets liberated you, listening to epics told by 45 million you embraced wave after wave of Turks. - - - - - - - -- “ My Cyprus, you shared the joy of that day, with our armies which began writing epics in frontlines destroying the barbarians. Girne (Kyrenia) is ours, then our army reaches Lefkosia (Nicosia); My Cyprus shares its joy with our army. …………………………………………… We crushed the aggressor, threw some into the sea, hoisted our flag on bastions my Cyprus was the iron hand holding sword. history says, Cyprus is ours, we shall seize all the islands of the Aegean, we shall reach the gates of Attaturk’s birthplace (Thessaloniki), they call us, blowing wind, My Cyprus.
TURKISH, MY CYPRUS”:
Turkey has succeeded so far to achieve a de facto geographical separation of the Cyprus territory and a de facto separation of the island’s population, aiming at the creation of two autonomous and homogeneous zones in Cyprus. Now she is attempting to achieve a psychological separation so that the new Turkish Cypriot generation will have nothing in common with the Greek Cypriot new generation.
The Turkish Cypriot population is also the victim of Turkey’s aggression against Cyprus. They live under inhuman conditions of fear, economic and psychological oppression. Though the Government of Cyprus wishes and at the same time has the duty to look after its citizens, is prevented from applying its economic, social, educational or other policy, over the occupied areas of Cyprus.
The Turkish Cypriot citizens of the Republic of Cyprus are not only welcomed to return to their homes and properties in the free areas of the island, but furthermore, the Government is ready to provide them with financial and other assistance, in order to make a new start.
The Turkish Cypriot well-organized propaganda says that the Turkish Cypriots were living until 1974 under the Greek Cypriots oppression and that was the reason why some of them left their homes during the 1963-1974 period and had entered the Turkish Cypriot zones, created by T.M.T. and other extremist Turkish Cypriot organizations.
In fact the above Turkish Cypriots were forced to enter the Turkish Cypriot zones by their leaders who were carrying out Turkey’s orders. This was the first step of the plan aiming at the partition of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot ministers, public officers, members of the Parliament etc. had left their posts. But even then, a considerable number of Turkish Cypriots continued to work together with their Greek Cypriot compatriots, though they were threatened by Turkish Cypriot terrorists.
The Turkish Cypriot leadership had made a “law” in order to exercise an effective pressure over the Turkish Cypriots who persisted to act as citizens of the Republic of Cyprus. Any contact between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots was prohibited under this “law”. Even the visit to the hospital or any public office was prohibited.
It is worth mentioning that the Council of Ministers’ Agenda was being continuously sent to the Turkish Cypriot Vice-President and the Turkish Cypriot Ministers many months after the 1963 incidents, but they obstinately refused to attend the meetings, in order to prove that the State existed no more.
Given the above actions of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, it is rather ironic to allege that the Turkish Cypriots were forced to leave their homes by the Greek Cypriots, and to become refugees. The Turkish Cypriot leadership, and of course Ankara, are solely liable for the displacement of the Turkish Cypriot citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.
From the facts stated above it is clear enough that: The restoration of human rights in Cyprus and the termination of the violation of International Law by Turkey can be achieved through the application of the appropriate procedures laid down in the United Nations Charter and other International documents.
(a) Turkey has violated the provisions of several international agreements and conventions concerning the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, by organizing and/or approving and/or tolerating and/or not preventing the perpetration of serious crimes committed by her armed forces in Cyprus.
(b) Turkey’s actions in Cyprus constitute an act of aggression (within the meaning of this word given by the definition of aggression, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly) and/or a breach of the peace and/or a threat to the peace and/or crimes against humanity.
(c) Turkey has repeatedly refused to comply with a number of resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, the main provisions of which are: (d) Turkey aims by certain actions at the abolition of the Republic of Cyprus, an independent, sovereign State, equal member of the United Nations Organization.
(i) Demand for the withdrawal without further delay 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.
(ii) Undertaking of urgent measures by the parties concerned to facilitate the voluntary return of all refugees to their homes in safety, and to settle all other aspects of the refugee problem.
(iii) Refraining by all parties from unilateral actions, including changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus.
(iv) Exertion of every effort by the Secretary-General to assist the tracing and accounting of missing persons as a result of armed conflict in Cyprus.
(e) Turkey prevents by means of military force the Government of the Republic of Cyprus from exercising any form of control or authority over the areas under Turkish occupation.
(f) Turkey has embarked on a systematic exploitation of the properties belonging to the Greek Cypriots who were forcibly uprooted from the occupied areas.
(g) Turkey has established an official mechanism, through which Turkish citizens are being transferred in Cyprus in order to change the demographic structure of the island.
(h) Turkey refuses to cooperate in order to carry out a subjective investigation about the fate of the missing persons.
(i) Turkey uses physical and psychological violence in order to expel the remaining Greek Cypriots, living in the Turkish occupied areas, and to subjugate the Turkish Cypriot population.
The violations of the United Nations Charter, especially those constituting an aggression and/or a breach of the peace and/or a threat to the peace can be terminated by the United Nations Organization. Practical measures are provided under articles 41 and 42 of the Charter to that effect. Therefore the Security Council has a duty to protect international peace and security by taking practical measures against Turkey, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid articles of the Charter.
It must be stressed that if political considerations are permitted to prevent the Security Council from taking practical measures for restoring peace, security and human rights in Cyprus, the very existence of the international organization would be jeopardized.
C. THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS The experience of the Republic of Cyprus gained as a result of the demands for the respect of the human rights of Cypriots before various European bodies has been positive, both in the case of inter-state recourses, as well as in the case of recourses by individuals, climaxing with the recent case of Titina Loizidou
Unfortunately, the leaderships if the Cypriot state failed, or did not wish, to utilise these formidable legal-political weapons which were added to the political armament for reasons that It has never been understood or accepted.
It is worth noting here the consequences on human rights likely to follow on the basis of the proposed settlement of the Cyprus problem.
This settlement has been clearly outlined by the UN Secretary-General and the various emissaries of states «interested» in the solution of the Cyprus problem, through their statements or their various documents.
The ''federal'' Cyprus state emerging from these plans, ideas and documents (non-papers or otherwise) will be definitely based on the following foundations: Taking all these points into account, as well as many others which are not mentioned because it is not definite that they have been finally adopted, it IS IMPOSSIBLE for any one to claim that these provisions incorporate the safeguarding and protection of the human rights of the citizens of Cyprus.
A. An artificial geographical separation of the Republic of Cyprus, without a historic, practical or any other legitimate basis.
B. An artificial creation of ''peoples'' based on violent movement and displacement, without political, cultural, historic or legitimate basis.
C. The creation of artificial, controlled majorities in the «federal» states, without a valid demographic or other basis and in complete contradiction with the social, cultural and historic reality.
D. Imposition of technical balances in the federal organs with the result of substantive control of the minority over the majority.
E. Violation of explicit and strict provisions of international law in the case of the settlers that Turkey, being the occupied power, has transfered into the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus. It is noted that such Turkey’s action is classified as an «international crime», both by existing provisions of international law, as well as on the basis of the International Criminal Code which has recently been adopted in Rome.
F. Perpetuation of the serious ecological problem which has been created by the violent uprooting of Cypriots from their land and the termination of their cultural continuity, as well as the overturning of the unity of the Cypriot space, in violation of the principles and regulations included in the European avis.
More simply, the settlement being outlined IS INCOMPATIBLE with the very sense of the protection of human rights. Having in mind that, even a genuine federation is legally and practically inapplicable in the case of Cyprus with the legally existing geographic, demographic, historic, cultural and other factors, the monstrous concoction being prepared for presentation to us effectively amounts to the self-abolition and dissolution of the state, and the interruption of the historic continuity of the Cyprus people.
This will effectively include the additional factor of the curtailment of the enjoyment by Cypriots of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the selfsame rights and freedoms which are enshrined in connection with every human being on our planet.
It is worth noting that the mediator appointed by the United Nations on the basis of the Security Council Resolution of March 4, 1964 stresses in his report that a federal solution, which was then proposed by the Turkish Cypriots, «is inapplicable», and could result in the transfer of populations, as well as «possible pressures in the direction of the partition of the island».
This is a clear reference to some rights and freedoms of the Cypriots which would be legally(!!!) violated (if such an absurdity were possible) on the basis of the provisions of a «federal»(!) Cyprus constitution.
1. The right of equality before the law and the state, due to the artificial introduction of racist criteria in dealing with the population.
2. The right of freedom of movement within the territory of the federal state.
3. The right of settlement in any part of the territory of the federal Cypriot state.
4. The right to acquire, enjoy and utilise immovable property.
5. The right to elect and be elected.
6. The right of participation in community affairs and the undertaking of public office.
But beyond this definite violation of specific rights, the settlement envisaged will violate basic principles of the modern democratic state as these have been developed, interpreted and applied through the decisions of international bodies, and are included in international law texts, such as the violation of the fundamental democratic principle that the majority rules safeguarded the rights of the minority.
The tragic confirmation of the negative parameters of the settlement being outlined began with the very first statements of the United States presidential envoy Richard Holbrook and through the framework of the new initiative of the United Nations Secretary-GeneraI, without underestimating the substantial contribution of the constantIy cunning British approach, as expressed by the British envoy Sir David Hannay.
In conclusion, I would like to point out the indeed delicate proposal, voiced during his recent visit to the island by Hans van den Broek, the European Union's Foreign Affairs Gommissioner, that if a Cyprus settlement includes restrictions on the protection of the Cypriots' human rights, the European Union would be ready to accept a digression from the treaty obligations of the future federal Cyprus state in the human rights sector. In this way, the people of Cyprus, by seeking to join the great European family, will by its own signature and free will accept the restriction of those rights for whose safeguarding is seeking to join the European Union. .
The question that arises is whether certain human rights will be applicable within the territory of the federal state of Cyprus for all citizens of the European Union, on the basis of the European avis, but not applicable in the case of the citizens of the federal Cyprus state.
Can the United Nations and the European Union give clear and satisfactory answers to these vital questions? Have these fundamental issues ever been given serious consideration by their officials? I am afraid the answer is negative, since the Cyprus problem is considered by them as an intercommunal dispute and not as a flagrant aggression of Turkey against the Republic of Cyprus.
It is imperative that even at this late hour the international community start implementing a policy demanding the rights and freedoms and what is just for the Cypriot population, in accordance with the principles that the major powers have proclaimed as just.
President of the Pancyprian Association
For the Protection of Human Rights