II. NEW POPULATION EXPULSIONS, TURKISH COLONIZATION, AGGRAVATED AND CONTINUING VIOLATIONS (19 MAY 1976 TO 10 FEBRUARY 1983 THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE COMMISSION'S SECOND REPORT)
This second period covers the time when Turkey consolidated her seizure
of the territory it occupied. This consolidation phase (implemented by
further population expulsion, large scale Anatolian colonization, continued
denial of the right of Greek Cypriot refugees to return, and attempts to
distribute all Greek Cypriot property) is the backdrop to Cyprus' third
application under the European Convention on Human Rights. Obviously these
were acts of systematic policy implemented by the Turkish Army and public
bodies exercising authority by virtue of Turkey's control of the occupied
area. They were not the isolated actions of individuals acting unlawfully.
The reality underlying these seven years is that, behind a faade of expressed
intention to negotiate a Cyprus solution and to agree on humanitarian arrangements
for refugees (with which professed aims Turkey sought to bemuse the international
community) she was in fact conducting yet another 'occupation of Cyprus,
beginning slowly in early 1976 and escalating from May 1976. This 'occupation
was effected by driving the remaining Greek Cypriot population out of the
area under Turkey's control, particularly in the Karpass peninsula, the
long eastern panhandle of Cyprus. The Karpass population, almost entirely
Greek Cypriot, had been cut off by the Turkish Army in its rapid advance
to Famagusta and towards Larnaca and had been unable to flee. At first
the enclaved Greek Cypriots were de facto kept as hostages until Turkish
Cypriots remaining in the Government-controlled area had been sent (pursuant
to threats in August 1975 of further Turkish invasion) to be concentrated
in the occupied area. However, once Turkish Cypriots had en masse been
transferred, Turkey, by official harassment, systematic intimidation and
imposition of harsh living conditions, forced about 7,000 Greek Cypriot
inhabitants to sign applications to leave the occupied area. By the end
of June 1994 the number of enclaved Greek Cypriots was reduced to 520.
In parallel with forcing out the remaining Greek Cypriots, Turkey speeded
up the process of importing Anatolian colonists from the mainland, settling
them primarily in the Karpass and near Famagusta.
By 1983, at least 35,000 Turkish settlers had been implanted, while by
1994 the number of settlers exceeded 80,000 and may have reached 100,000
(on figures extracted from Turkish publications). Indeed, Turkish Cypriot
politicians complain bitterly that Turkish Cypriots are becoming a minority
in the Turkish occupied area.
TURKEY'S VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Cyprus charges against Turkey were published in October 1978 by the
Commission after it had declared Cyprus' application admissible i.e. that
it would fully investigate and that Turkey had to answer a prima facie
case made out by Cyprus. Turkey's Objections
Turkey, as in the earlier applications, raised every conceivable technical
objection to the Commission's jurisdiction. In particular it claimed that
no application could be considered because:
Further Proceedings
After holding Cyprus' claim against Turkey admissible in October 1978,
the Commission had to investigate the facts with the co-operation of both
parties, if that was forthcoming, and with the applicant State alone should
Turkey refuse to participate despite its Convention obligations to do so.
In addition to following all procedural requirements of the Convention,
the Commission in March 1983 conducted a hearing at which oral submissions
could be made. Turkey chose not to be represented.14 (It should be remembered
that Turkey chose not to participate in the investigation of the first
two applications).
In November 1983 the Commission adopted its Report.15 According to Article
31.1 of the Convention this Report would have been 'on the facts and stating
its opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State
concerned of its obligations under the Convention. The making of the Report
also indicates that no solution by way of friendly settlement was reached.
Since Turkey does not recognise the jurisdiction of the European Court
of Human Rights, in terms of Convention Article 32 the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe was therefore seized of the case. The Committee
of Ministers, by resolution DH (92) 12 adopted on 2 April 1992, deci-ded
to make public the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human
Rights adopted on 4 October 1983.
The Substance Underlying the Proceedings in Cyprus v. Turkey (Third Application).
Relevant Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Everyone
has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived
of his liberty... (Article 5). 'veryone has the right to respect for his...
family life... (Article 8). Charge laid against Turkey: About 2,000 Greek
Cypriots, a considerable number being civilians, are still missing. They
were last seen alive in the occupied area of Cyprus after hostilities had
ceased and under arrest by the Turkish army or armed Turks acting under
its direction. Many had been seen in detention in prisons in Turkey or
in Cyprus. Turkey nonetheless continued to prevent any investigation by
international humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee
of the Red Cross. For 9 years, Turkey, through her puppet regime, declined
to act on five UN General Assembly Resolutions which sought to activate
a humanitarian Committee on Missing Persons to investigate the fate of
all Cypriots missing as a result of the invasion. In response there was
prevarication, refusal to co-operate and addition of new and obstructive
conditions.
Fresh evidence about some of the missing persons last seen alive in Turkish
detention revealed that some were in Adana and Amasia prisons in Turkey.
Others had been photographed after their surrender or in Turkish ships
on their way to Turkey. Yet others had been heard on Turkish radio, broadcasting
messages to their families. In the absence of proof that the missing persons
had been killed or had died, Turkey was responsible for continuing deprivation
of liberty of all those persons shown to have been in her custody. Grave
infringement of family rights had also occurred. Families suffered severely,
being uncertain whether their loved ones were alive or dead because no
account had been given of the fate of those who had disappeared although
in Turkish custody. Turkey's Defence: Turkey was not represented at the
oral hearing after the Commission's dismissal of her jurisdictional objections,
which included the objection that more than six months had passed since
it was known that 2,000 Greek Cypriots were missing.16 Commission's Verdict:
'The Commission, having found it established in three cases, and having
found sufficient indications in an indefinite number of cases, that Greek
Cypriots who are still missing were unlawfully deprived of their liberty,
in Turkish custody in 1974, noting that Turkey has failed to account for
the fate of these persons, concludes by 16 votes against one that Turkey
has violated Art 5 of the Convention'.
Note: After the Commission had reported and at a time when, having regard
to the provisions of the Convention, proceedings before the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe would be likely to comence, Turkey's
puppet regime in the occupied area agreed to co-operate in establishing
the longproposed Committee on Missing Persons. However, such Committee
does not have adequate investigatory powers: it can operate only in Cyprus
and not in Turkey, where many missing persons were last seen; it cannot
order exhumations; and it cannot make any recommendations or award remedies.
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Everyone
has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and
his correspondence (Article 8). Charge laid against Turkey: The Turkish
Army sealed off the demarcation line running across the island and known
as the green line in Nicosia. They physically prevented about 190,000 displaced
Greek Cypriots (now including children born as refugees) from returning
to their homes, and continued this policy without remission for a decade,
thus aggravating earlier Turkish violations of refugees' rights for which
the Commission had as long ago as 1976 condemned Turkey. Turkey's continuing
failure to allow families who had fled across the line to be reunited with
their remaining relatives in the occupied area was an aggravating factor.
Conditions for the 8,000 Greek Cypriots who remained in the occupied area
in 1976 (mainly in Karpasia) were so harsh that between 1976 and 1979,
about 7,000 were forced to sign applications to leave after suffering violence,
threats, curfews, looting, forced labour, refusal of medical facilities
and denial of secondary education. Most of the violence and harassment
was effected through Anatolian settlers. Those Greek Cypriots who remained
in the occupied area were often separated from their children: in order
to receive an adequate education, children had to be sent to be educated
in the free area and were not permitted by Turkey to return unless they
formally acknowledged Turkish jurisdiction over Cyprus.
Turkey's defence: At the admissibility stage, Turkey put forward jurisdictional
objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested
in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission
proceedings - in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention
- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear
at the oral hearing in March 1983.
Commission's verdict:
'The Commission concludes, by 13 votes against two with two abstentions
that, by her continued refusal to allow over 170 thousand Greek Cypriots
to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus, Turkey continues to violate
Art 8 in all these cases. The Commission further concludes by 14 votes
against two and with one abstention, that, in the cases of continued separation
of families resulting from Turkey's refusal to allow the return of Greek
Cypriots to their family members in the north, Turkey continues to violate
Art 8 of the Convention'.
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Every
natural person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of the possession.
No one shall be deprived of his possessions... (Protocol No. 1 Article
1). Charge laid against Turkey: The Greek Cypriot refugees who had been
driven from their homes or had fled at the time of Turkey's invasion or
soon thereafter continued to be deprived of their property by the Turkish
Armed Forces' refusal to allow them to return. Under Turkey's direction
there was now a consolidation of informal seizures. The Turkish Cypriot
puppet authorities purported in 1977 to pass a so-called 'Law to Provide
for the Housing and Distribution of Land and Property of Equal Value and
amended this in 1982 to give semi-permanent definitive certificates of
possession to Turkish settlers (including soldiers of the Occupation Force)
and Turkish Cypriots who had been handed Greek Cypriot property.
Wholly new deprivations occurred in respect of the 7,000 Greek Cypriots
(mainly from the Karpass) who, under duress, were compelled to leave their
homes and possessions and to move to the free area.
More wanton destruction of cultural objects, especially of Greek Orthodox
churches and religious treasures, also occurred. Remaining antiquities
were discovered to be 'saleable and found their way via Turkish hands to
international dealers. Turkish Cypriots, wrote about destruction, pillage,
theft, smuggling, and plunder.17
Agricultural, commercial and industrial enterprises belonging to Greek
Cypriots in the occupied area, seized by the Turks following the invasion,
continued to be exploited by the latter on a permanent basis without any
authority from their owners (who were prevented from repossessing them)
while a substantial number of Greek Cypriot factories were put into operation
for the first time after 1977. One such factory (in the Mia Milia area)
is operated by Wearwell Ltd., a subsidiary of Polly Peck PLC, a large U.K.
public company, recipient of the Queen's Export Award to Industry. This
same group admitted through its Chairman, Mr. Asil Nadir, that it was acting
as Turkey's instrument to market the produce of the occupied area.
Indeed a substantial part of the citrus belonging to the Greek Cypriots
of the Morphou area is exported to the United Kingdom and Europe by the
group. Their exploitation of seized Greek Cypriot assets has been encouraged
and facilitated by Turkey, which assisted the group in establishing enterprises
on the mainland. The activities in Cyprus of Polly Peck PLC and its associates
are similar to those of German industry between 1938 and 1945 in their
unprincipled and virtually uncompensated exploitation of seized Jewish
assets.18
Turkey's defence: At the admissibility stage Turkey put forward jurisdictional
objections. It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested
in the first two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission
proceedings - in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention
- once her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear
at the oral hearing in March 1983.
Commission's verdict:
'The Commision concludes, by 13 votes against one and with three abstentions,
that Turkey has violated Art 1 of Protocol No 1.
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights:
'The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention
shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as race... religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with
a national minority... or other status (Article 14). Charge laid against
Turkey: Most of Turkey's violations were directed against members of one
community only, namely the Greek Cypriot community, because of their ethnic
origin, race and religion. Turkey's aim was to eliminate all traces of
Greek civilisation and to set up a demographically homogeneous ethnically
Turkish and Muslim state in the occupied area.19 In another context this
would be condemned as apartheid or cultural genocide. Turkey's defence:
At the admissibility stage Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections.
It should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first
two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings
- in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention - once
her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at
the oral hearing in March 1983.
Commission's verdict:
'Having again found violations of the rights of Greek Cypriots under a
number of Articles of the Convention in the present case, the Commission
does not consider it necessary to add anything to its finding under Art.
14 in the previous case.
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Everyone
whose rights and freedom... are violated shall have an effective remedy...
(Article 13).
Charge laid against Turkey: In respect of new and continuing violations
from May 1976 onwards no effective remedy was provided by Turkey, whether
in her own courts or those of the area she occupied. Indeed, in the occupied
area Turkey's puppet regime had purported to enact a 'Constitution, depriving
Greek Cypriots of virtually all human rights and conferring 'constitutional
protection in respect of many rights only on Turks. Turkey's defence: At
the admissibility stage Turkey put forward jurisdictional objections. It
should be borne in mind that Turkey's attitude, manifested in the first
two applications, was to refuse to participate in Commission proceedings
- in default of her procedural obligations under the Convention - once
her jurisdictional objections were overruled. Turkey did not appear at
the oral hearing in March 1983.
Commission's verdict:
'The Commission, in its examination of the merits of this complaint, does
not find it necessary to add anything to its finding in the decision on
admissibility.
Relevant Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Commission's verdict:
'The Commission, having regard to the material before it, finds that it
does not have sufficient available evidence enabling it to come to any
conclusion regarding this complaints.
