Cyprus-Dispute.org
Search

Main Page :- Articles :- European Commission of Human Rights - Cyprus v. Turkey - Commission Report, 10 July 1976

 

Table of Contents <-Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next->

Chapter 1 - Displacement of persons

Introduction

89.       Many of the applicant Government's allegations of violations of human rights by the Turkish armed forces in the Northern part of Cyprus are closely related to the displacement, on a massive scale, of the Greek Cypriot population of that area. The Commission has therefore first considered whether the alleged expulsion of some 200,000 Greek Cypriot citizens and/or the alleged refusal to allow their return to their homes in the northern area, constitute, if established, in themselves violations of the Convention.

90.       Further alleged violations of the Convention arising out, not of the displacement as such, but of particular circumstances of alleged measures of expulsion in individual cases, such as ill-treatment, detention, loss of property, etc., must be distinguished from the displacement itself and will be dealt with in the relevant context in subsequent chapters.

91.       Finally, as regards the displacement, the Commission considers that a distinction should be made between:

-         the movement of persons provoked by the military action of Turkey;

-         measures of displacement not directly connected with the said military action (e.g. eviction from homers, expulsions and transfers across the demarcation line);

-         the refusal to allow the return of refugees and expellees, and

-         the separation of families brought about by measures of displacement.

This distinction, which is not to be found in the applicant Government's submissions, will be observed by the Commission in its presentation and evaluation of the evidence obtained, and in its opinion on the legal issues.

A. Submissions of the Parties

I.          Applicant Government

92.       The applicant Government submitted that, as far ago as 1964 Turkey had pursued a policy with regard to Cyprus which envisaged a compulsory exchange of population between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities in order to bring about a state of affairs in which each of the two communities would occupy a separate part of the island. This policy became publicly known as the so-called Attila plan [63].

93.       The military action of 1974, and in particular its second phase between 14 and 16 August 1974, was designed to implement this plan by the use of force [64]. The atrocities committed in the course of this action constituted part of the tactics to bring about the geographical partition of Cyprus with the object of destroying and eradicating the Greek population of the occupied areas and creating a Turkish populated area [65].

94.       The actions of the Turkish armed forces included:

-         the deportation to Turkey of men who were taken prisoners[66];

-         the transport of persons (mostly women, children and old men) to the demarcation line and their expulsion to areas controlled by the applicant Government [67]. The Government specially mentioned the expulsion in this manner of about 600 persons from the villages of Karmi, Trimithi, Thermia, Kazaphani and Ayios Georgios on 2 August 1974 [68], and of 778 persons, mostly from the Karpasia area, between 27 and 30 June 1975 (among whom were the last inhabitants of the villages Ayios Serghios, Gerani, Akhna, Engomi, Kalopsida, Davlos, Ayios Georgios and Spatharikon) [69]. Further cases of expulsion allegedly happened in 1976, affecting 1,051 persons including children and elderly people from Kyrenia and Karpasia area between January and May 1976 [70];

-         the detention of persons who had stayed in the areas controlled by the Turkish armed forces in "concentration camps" where they were forced to live under such miserable conditions that they reached a stage of complete despair, and had to apply to move to the areas controlled by the applicant Government in order to alleviate their condition [71];

-         the forcing of persons either by the threat of arms, or by inhuman conditions of life imposed on them by the Turkish military authorities, to sign applications for their transportation to areas controlled by the applicant Government [72];

-         the creation of such conditions in the north of Cyprus that Greek Cypriots would not wish to return there even if they were allowed to do so. The applicant Government complained in particular of faits accomplis such as the allocation of Greek Cypriot homes and properties to Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers [73];

-         the continued refusal to allow the return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the area controlled by the Turkish forces [74];

95.       The result of these measures was that out of a total population of about 200,000 Greek Cypriots in the north there remained only about 14,000 in September 1974, and about 8,000 in July 1975. The applicant Government stressed that the remainder (about 40% of the island's Greek population) did not move to the south of their own volition, in the exercise of the "freedom to move to the south" proclaimed by the Turkish side, but were all expelled by the Turkish army and not allowed to return [75].

96.       The applicant Government also referred to certain statements which were said to have been mode by Turkish officials. Thus the Chief Spokesman of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Mr. Semi Akbil, was reported to have stated that the remaining 8,000 Greek Cypriote in the north might also have to be moved. Mr. Baruteu, Head of the Cyprus and Greek Department of the same Ministry, had modified this statement by saying that only those Greek Cypriots who had applied for permission to leave were being moved, and that this was not expulsion [76].

97.       According to the applicant Government, however, some of the persons concerned were forced to sign applications for their transportation to the Government controlled areas; the majority did not even sign such applications and persistently refused to abandon their homes. In fact, all of them were displaced by force [77].

II.         Respondent Government

98.       The respondent Government who, for the reasons stated above [78], did not take part in the proceedings on the merits, have not made any statements with regard to these allegations.

B. Relevant Article of the Convention

99.       The Commission considers that the displacement of persons from their homes, as complained of in the present applications, raises issues under Art. 8 of the Convention (interference with their homes and their private and family life). It notes in this connection the applicant Government's view that the "displacement of thousands of persons from their places of residence and refusal to all of them to return thereto" caused separations of families and other interferences with private life" [79].

100.        Art. 8 of the Convention reads as follows:

"1.         Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence.

2.         There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

C. Evidence obtained

I.         General information concerning displaced persons in Cyprus

101.        In view of the scope and importance in the present applications of the complaints concerning the displacement of Greek Cypriots from the north of Cyprus, following the Turkish military action in 1974, the Commission has first sought to obtain some general information concerning the displacement of persons in Cyprus.

102.        The Commission notes that the displacement of persons in Cyprus, as a consequence of the 1974 events, was on a very large scale and covered both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, but an overwhelming majority of the former. The figures of Greek Cypriots displaced to the south are about 180,000 as will be set out below; the figures of Turkish Cypriots who moved to the north are of the order of 40,000 including approximately 17,000 transferred under negotiated agreements [80]. The overall situation in respect of the displaced persons in Cyprus has been described in the Forni and Karasek reports to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [81], as well as the progress reports of the Secretary General of the United Nations on developments in Cyprus [82].

103.        The fact that the overwhelming majority of the Greek Cypriot population has left the northern area of Cyprus as a consequence of the Turkish military action in 1974 is common knowledge and needs no corroboration by specific evidence. In this respect the Commission would simply refer to the Council of Europe and United Nations reports mentioned above [83] and to the visit of its Delegates, on 5 September 1975, to two refugee camps in the area controlled by the applicant Government [84].

104.        As regards the number of Greek Cypriot displaced persons, the Commission's Delegation heard two witnesses who hold responsible posts concerned with relief to refugees in Cyprus: Mr George Iacovou, Director of the Special Service for the Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons (an organisation set up by the applicant Government and operative since 20 August 1974), and Mrs Stella Soulioti, Chairman of the Cyprus Red Cross Society.

Mrs Soulioti stated that there were some 26,000 refugees after the first phase of the Turkish military operation (3 August 1974), and 170,000 after the second phase (22 August 1974). She estimated that the number must have risen further to about 210,000 by September 1975, but admitted that her figures could be less reliable than those to be obtained from Mr Iacovou [85].

Mr Iacovou stated that already before the creation of the Special Service he had been responsible for registering the persons who had become displaced during the first phase of the military operation and that there had been about 30,000 refugees at that time. He further said that according to the Special Service's records there were 182,827 displaced persons in September 1975, 135,716 of whom were not self-supporting and received aid from the Special Service, so that he knew their number very intimately. Originally there had been even 203,000 needy refugees, but many persons who had left areas in the south bordering the territories controlled by Turkey had in the meanwhile returned there [86].

105.        Of the reports mentiond above [87], the Forni report of the Parliamentary Assembly, referring to data published by the applicant Government, states that the number of Greek Cypriot refugees fell from 203,600 on 1 September 1974 to 179,000 on 21 November 1974, 24,000 people having returned to their homes in Nicosia or near the Turkish-held zone [88].

According to a UN report of 9 June 1975 the number of displaced Greek Cypriots on that date was 182,000, their total number having increased by some 3,000 since 21 November 1974, primarily because of the transfer of Greek Cypriots from the north to the south [89].

106.        The methods and process of displacement of Greek Cypriots have been described by many witnesses. The Commission here notes the testimony of witnesses heard by its Delegation in Cyprus who had left the northern area as a consequence of the military events in the summer of 1974, and the statements of the persons interviewed in the refugee camps. Some of them also gave a more general account of the population movement as they had seen it. Further evidence is contained in many of the written statements submitted by the applicant Government. Finally, there are some relevant UN documents such as UNFICYP reports on certain incidents, or the reports of the Secretary General of the United Nations on intercommunal talks which took place under his auspices.

II.         The movement of persons provoked by the military action of Turkey in the  two phases of actual fighting (20-22 July, and 14-16 August 1974)

107.        It appears from the evidence before the Commission that the majority of the displaced persons are persons who fled from their homes in the north of Cyprus because of the military action of Turkey in the two phases of actual fighting (20-22 July 1974 and 14-16 August 1974).

108.        According to witness Mrs Soulioti the 170,000 refugees who had existed by 22 August 1974 were very largely people who had fled themselves [90]. This was confirmed by Mr Iacovou who pointed to the psychological condition of these people [91]. He mentioned that even the Greek Cypriot population of places that were never reached by Turkish troops had ebbed away and had only returned to their homes after the actual fighting stopped [92].

109.        There is evidence showing that the flight of Greek Cypriots from the fighting area started in the very first days of the Turkish military action in July 1974. A UN report of 22 July 1974 stated that a major problem faced by all UN contingents was that of refugees, most of whom were concentrated in the Kyrenia and Famagusta areas [93]. Witness Soulioti also said with regard to displaced persons in the first phase that there may have been some who fled, who left on their own [94].

110.        The evidence shows, however, that the main refugee movement occurred during the second phase of the Turkish military action. Witnesses Odysseos and Kaniklides both considered that at the beginning of that phase the people left in panic because they were horrified by the impressions of the July events and the stories told by the refugees from the Kyrenia area about the conduct of Turkish troops towards Greek Cypriot civilians [95].

Mr Odysseos told the Delegation that he himself left Morphou on 14 August 1974 when it became known that the Turkish troops approached the area; by the time they moved into Morphou on 16 August all but 600 Greek Cypriots (of more than 6,000) had gone [96].

Mr Kaniklides stated that he had stayed in Famagusta because he had been living with his paralysed mother, but at least 95 if not 99% of the Famagusta population left when they became aware that the (second) Geneva negotiations had broken down, as "no sane family would stay in Famagusta under the circumstances" [97].

111.        Witness Iacovou stated that the village Akhna (Athna) was occupied by the Turkish army after the cease-fire of 16 August 1974; only three persons stayed behind in that village. On the other hand the local population and many refugees remained at Akheritou until the Turkish troops arrived. This village borders on the sovereign base area of Dhekelia Ayios Nikolaos and had therefore been thought to be secure - wrongly as it turned out. The village was attacked and some people were killed [98].

112.        The following witnesses told the Commission's Delegation that they themselves had left, or had seen others leaving, their homes in the northern part of Cyprus because of the Turkish military operation, without direct physical constraint being exerted against them:

(a)         Witnesses Mr Efthymiou and Mrs Kyprianou described how they and their families, like many other people, left their homes near Kyrenia in order to get away from the area of fighting as soon as they noticed the arrival of the Turkish forces in the first phase of the military operation (20-21 July 1974)      they were, however, eventually apprehended by the Turkish soldiers [99].

(b)         Witness Dr Charalambides, former Deputy Mayor of Kyrenia, stated that immediately after the first period of fighting many people including himself (on 23 July 1974) left their houses in Kyrenia because they did not feel secure any longer,and sought refuge in the Dome Hotel which at that time was under UN protection [100].

(c)         Witness Odysseos stated that he left Morphou on 14 August 1974 before the Turkish army reached it [101].

(d)         Witness Kaniklides from Famagusta [102] stated that he saw members of his family leaving [103] and that he had telephone communications with clients who had left Famagusta [104] before the Turkish troops moved into the city.

(e)         Witness Dr Hadjikakou, a physician, stated that he was in charge of a military hospital at Lysi. After an air attack he moved all his patients from Lysi to Famagusta. He was then ordered (apparently by the applicant Government) to stay in Famagusta and to work in the Government hospital there, which in turn was eventually evacuated to the enclave Ormidhia in the British base of Dhekelia [105].

113.        Of the persons interviewed in the refugee camps refugee B said that she and her family left the village Trakhoni before Turkish troops reached it, and that she saw others leaving as well [106]. Refugee D of Palekythro, who was detained in Voni, said that the other members of his family crossed over to the Greek sector in view of the danger [107]. Three young boys in the refugee camp Stavros (H, I and J, aged between 11 and 14 years) stated that they left their homes with their families [108].

114.        It appears from the evidence that the refugee movement of Greek Cypriots from any place in the northern area of Cyprus came to a halt as soon as it was overtaken by the Turkish troops. After the phases of actual fighting (20-22 July and 14-16 August 1974) any Greek Cypriots who still remained in areas then controlled by the Turkish army were subjected to restrictions of movement [109] and it seems that the Turkish forces even stopped the flight of Greek Cypriot refugees. Several written statements [110] described the apprehension by Turkish troops of such refugees in their flight.

III.         Measures of displacement not directly connected with the Turkish military action in the periods of actual fighting

115.        There is evidence that after the end of the actual fighting any displacement of Greek Cypriots within and from the areas controlled by the Turkish army took place under the actual supervision of the civil or military authorities in these areas.

116.        The Commission found evidence concerning the following forms of such displacement:

(a)         displacement of Greek Cypriots within the areas controlled by the Turkish army, in particular by their eviction from homes and property [111];

(b)         expulsion of Greek Cypriots from the north of Cyprus across the demarcation line [112];

(c)         negotiated transfer of Greek Cypriots to the area controlled by the applicant Government after detention in the north of Cyprus [113];

(d)         deportation of Greek Cypriots to the mainland of Turkey from where they were eventually released to the area controlled by the applicant Government [114], and

(e)         negotiated transfer,for humanitarian reasons,of medical cases and other persons to the area controlled by the applicant Government [115].

(a)         Displacement of Greek Cypriots within the areas  controlled by the Turkish army

117.        There is ample evidence concerning the removal of large groups of Greek Cypriots from places in the north of Cyprus to other places within the territory controlled by the Turkish army. It appears that a considerable number of people, including in many instances the entire remaining population of Greek Cypriot villages, were so removed from their ordinary places of residence, but a relatively high proportion were persons who had left their own homes and found shelter in the houses of others, relatives, friends and in some cases foreigners.

118.        There is evidence that persons were evicted under physical constraint from houses, including their own houses. Thus, Refugee A in the Refugee Camp Orphanage School stated that she and her family were evicted from their house at Ayios Georgios in July 1974 [116]. Witnesses Kyprianou and V. Ephtimiou stated that their group was forced out at gun point from a cellar or stable where they had hidden [117]. Witness Andronikou, Director General of the Cyprus Tourism Organisation, stated that two hotel owners who had been ejected came to see him: The owner of the Constantia Hotel in Famagusta, who had stayed behind after the evacuation of the city because he had had a bed-ridden daughter, had been asked by the Turkish military authorities to go away, otherwise he would suffer the consequences. A lady, the owner of the Bellapais Hotel in Kyrenia, had been. ordered to leave the hotel and had been threatened that she would be killed if she refused to go [118]. Moreover, it appears that many people were ordered to gather at certain central assembly points (school, church) in their respective villages [119]. If they were not immediately detained there [120] they were driven away in buses and other vehicles.

119.        Especially in respect of the first phase of the Turkish military action there is evidence that groups of people were driven to assembly points outside villages, where they were held for short periods of time, and then allowed to return to their villages. Forcible excursions of this kind were in some places repeated several times, and in some cases the villagers found their houses looted when they returned. Eventually the men were taken prisoner, and women and children were expelled to areas controlled by the applicant Government.

120.        Incidents of this kind were confirmed in a UN report of 5 August 1974 [121]. The Delegates also heard some eye-witnesses who described such incidents.

Thus witness Pirkettis, a 37 year-old schoolteacher, stated that he was on holiday in the north and stayed in a house at Trimithi when the Turks arrived. On 26 and 29 July 1974 the people in this village were told. to gather in the school yard and were then driven in buses and trucks to Boghazi. Having been brought back to their village, they were again driven to Boghazi, but this time all men between 15 and 70 including himself were separated from their families at Boghazi and brought to Turkey [122]. His family was again taken back to the village and was released to the south some days later [123].

Refugee C in the Refugee Camp Orphanage School in Nicosia stated that she and other persons who had taken refuge in a house of English people in the village of Karmi were evicted and taken to a field. About 200 people were kept there for several hours, and were then driven to Boghazi on the Kyrenia-Nicosia road, from where they were taken back to the village. The men, including C's son, were then taken prisoner, and she herself and other villagers were expelled after several days of confinement [124].

Descriptions of similar incidents were contained in a number of written statements submitted by the applicant Government some of which referred to and confirmed the above statements concerning events in Trimithi and Karmi [125].

121.        It further appears from the evidence that in other cases groups of Greek Cypriots were transported, either directly from their villages, or from the assembly points mentioned above, to various places of detention within the territory controlled by the Turkish army:

(a)         Men who were later officially classified as "prisoners or detainees" in the inter-communal agreements and UN documents, were usually taken to Saray Prison or Pavlides Garage in the Turkish sector of Nicosia, or to Turkish military camps in the countryside (e.g. Acrades camp). Most of them were subsequently deported to Turkey [126].

(b)         Many people, mostly women, children and old men, were taken to certain detention centres, the main ones being in Gypsou, Marathovouno, Vitsada, Voni and later Morphou [127]. Witness Soulioti submitted lists giving details of such transfers [128].

(c)         Finally, some persons from Kyrenia and the surrounding villages were brought to the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia by Turkish troops. This was confirmed by UN reports [129] and by witnesses heard by the Delegation, including witness Soulioti [130] and eye-witness Dr Charalambides, who was detained in the Dome Hotel [131]. Other persons who went to the Dome Hotel or who were brought there by the UN forces for their protection were eventually also detained by the Turkish army and not allowed to return to their houses [132].

122.        By the summer of 1975 the process of displacement of Greek Cypriots within the north of Cyprus had come to an end either by the return of the persons concerned to their homes in this area, or by their expulsion or negotiated transfer the area controlled by the applicant Government.

(b)         Expulsion of Greek Cypriots from the north of  Cyprus across the demarcation line [133]

123.        Expulsions of groups of Greek Cypriots from the area controlled by the Turkish army by their deportation to the demarcation line were described in a UN report based on UNFICYP information of 5 August 1974. According to this report some of the women and children of many villages were told to leave their villages and to cross the line into territory controlled by the National Guard. Others were transported, without their possessions, to Nicosia by bus and set free with instructions to cross the "green line" into the Greek Cypriot sector of the city [134].

124.        Straightforward expulsions by driving groups of people in buses and other vehicles to the green line were also described by witness Mrs Soulioti who stated [135] that she had personally seen such people arrive and had arranged that they were put in the Acropolis Gymnasium in Nicosia where she had interviewed some of them. As President of the Cyprus Red Cross Society she had also received various reports from Red Cross workers who had taken care of those displaced persons at the green line.

According to the witness there had been three waves of such expulsions:

-         On 2 August 1974 about 600 people were evicted in this way from Trimithi, Karmi and Ayios Georgios, three villages just west of Kyrenia.

-         According to statements made to the Cyprus Red Cross between 17 and 24 August 1974 the same pattern was followed in the second phase of the Turkish military operation with regard to the villages of Omorphita, Trakhoni, Mandres, Assia and Livadia. Mrs Soulioti could not tell the overall number of actual expulsions in the second phase but stated that she had received information according to which 300 people of Assia had been evacuated to Dhekelia.

-         Finally, according to the witness, 900 people, mainly from the Karpasia area, were expelled in June 1975; she was informed of this expulsion by the Red Cross workers who received these people. The witness also submitted a copy of a letter written on 8 July 1975 by Mr Matsoukaris, Head of the applicant Government's Service for Humanitarian Matters, to Mr H. Schmid de Gruneck, Head of the Mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Nicosia, which described the conditions under which these expulsions occurred [136].

125.        Hearsay evidence concerning direct expulsions from Trimithi and Asha (Assia) was given by witness Iacovou. He stated that the people of Asha were loaded into buses and taken to the village of Pergamos, which borders on the Sovereign Base of Dhekelia, where they were released and told to walk to the other side [137]. As to the expulsions from the Karpasia area, he observed [138]:

"The Turks (Turkish Cypriots) have been going to the area controlled by the Turkish army all the time by various means. The official means was originally the exchange of prisoners and then the reunification of families. That was done by agreement. The recent exchange which was agreed upon in Vienna arose from the intention of the Turks to expel 10,000 persons in the Karpas peninsula unless the Turks in the south were allowed to go north. In fact they had started enforcing their threat and expelled 850 Greeks from the Karpasia area, and in the course of the Vienna talks it was agreed that the Government should allow the Turks in the Government-controlled area to go north and the Turkish authorities would accept a number of the 850."

126.        The Commission's Delegation also heard several persons who stated that they were expelled from the north of Cyprus, or had been eye-witnesses of such expulsion.

Among the refugees whom Delegates interviewed in the refugee camp Orphanage School in Nicosia one person, Refugee A, stated that she was forced by Turkish Cypriots to leave her house at Ayios Georgios. She was eventually driven to the green line in Nicosia on 2 August 1974. All the people in the camp had come to the green line together. [139].

Another woman in the same camp, Refugee C from Karmi, described the eviction of the population of her village: when Turkish troops arrived in July 1974 they drove about 200 villagers in vehicles to a place on the Kyrenia-Nicosia road. The UN intervened and they were taken back to their villages. Then the men (among them C's son) were separated and deported to Turkey. The remaining people were confined to their houses for several days. Finally, on 2 August 1974 they were taken in trucks to Nicosia where they were set free near the green line at the Ledra Palace Hotel [140].

Witness Pirkettis described a similar course of events in Trimithi [141]: he was deported to Turkey [142], but his family was "released" to the south some days after his separation from them on 29 July 1974 [143].

127.        Descriptions of group expulsions are also contained in a number of written statements submitted by the applicant Government. According to some statements their authors were evicted from their houses [144] while other statements report that their authors were apprehended in the houses of others or in their flight [145].

128.        Several of these statements relate to the events at Trimithi which were also described by witness Pirkettis. On the whole they confirm his testimony and add that the remaining population of Trimithi was taken to the green line in three buses on 2 August 1974 [146]. Two other written declarations stated to be by persons from Ayios Georgios and Karmi support the oral statements of Refugees A and C [147].

129.        Further statements concerning expulsions were submitted by witness Tryfon, the Chairman of the Cyprus Land and Property Owners' Association. Of the statements which, according to the witness, were made to his association; one described the forcible expulsion of 184 persons from a village on 7 August 1974 [148]. Another Written statement submitted by Mr. Tryfon describes a group expulsion of about 60 people on 27 November 1974 [149].

130.        Finally, a film of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation showing interviews with people from Davlos and other villages of north-east Cyprus, who stated that they were expelled from their homes in June 1975, was shown to the Commission's Delegation at the Cyprus Broadcasting Studios in Nicosia on 4 September 1974 [150].

(c)         Negotiated transfer of Greek Cypriots to the  area controlled by the applicant Government  after detention in the north of Cyprus

131.        There is evidence concerning the transfer of a considerable number of Greek Cypriots to the area controlled by the applicant Government on release from detention [151].

132.        In connection with detention in the north of Cyprus, the Commission notes that several witnesses considered that in particular the "concentration camps" were a deliberate device to eradicate the Greek population from the area [152].

133.        In this respect some referred to statements made by

Mr Zuger, Representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Mr Kelly, Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), before the UN Ambassador Weckmann-Munoz, Mr Denktash and Mr Clerides at their meeting of 7 February 1975 [153].

These statements, which were also submitted by the applicant Government [154], read as follows:

"Zuger:

The people, who were brought from villages to Morphou, have been placed in a school building, in crowded conditions, under guard. They have no freedom to go outside the building, they are mostly elderly men and women and young children. The situation is similar to that which existed in Voni, Gypsou and Vitsadha. They want to go south because they are not allowed to go back to their homes. We have not noticed any signs of physical pressure on them, but it is true that, after six months of confinement, they feel that there is no hope for them. Even the Morphou people are not allowed to live in their homes, with the exception of one family. Our doctors fear for the life of these people. Most of them have given up, they are lying on the floor, they are completely disinterested in everything that goes on around them and the only thing they do is to cry. The Red Cross gives them what aid it can in medicines etc., but this is not enough. On humanitarian grounds we urge that they should be transferred to the south.

Kelly:

One must distinguish their present situation during the last two months from that they were in when they lived in their own villages. Before they were moved from the villages they did net want to go south. They wanted to remain in their homes. Now that they have been moved to Morphou, the physical conditions in which they live are deplorable, they are confined in a school building, they are not allowed to move out of the building, their spirit has broken down. They are lying in the floor crying. As far as we know, they were moved by the Turkish army without any explanation. They were not allowed to move their furniture or their personal belongings except a few clothes. I have visited them before and they were happy in their homes, in the villages.

Zuger:

They have applied to move south after they were moved from their villages. Before, from our visits to their villages, we can say that they were happy in their homes."

134.        In view of these statements the Commission has found it necessary to consider the conditions of the release and transfer of Greek Cypriots from the various places of detention in the north of Cyprus to the area controlled by the applicant Government.

135.        There is evidence that the transfer of persons who had been detained for longer periods - as opposed to those who were unilaterally expelled after short periods of detention [155] - took place on a mutual basis under intercommunal agreements which were concluded pursuant to the Geneva Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of 30 July 1974 [156]. Para 3 D of this Declaration [157] read as follows:

"Military personnel and civilians detained as a result of the recent hostilities shall be either exchanged or released under the supervision of the International Committee of the Red Cross within the shortest possible time."

136.        On 4 August 1974 the Turkish Embassy in Nicosia passed the following message to UNFICYP with the request that it be transmitted to the Greek Cypriot authorities:

"With reference to paragraph 3 (d) of the Geneva Declaration, Turkey states her readiness to release all civilian Greek and Greek Cypriots who are in the Turkish controlled areas without regard to equality of numbers.

Turkey seeks a similar statement from the other interested parties and the ICRC should undertake its responsibilities and fulfil its duty in that respect and state its readiness to co-operate. Turkey gives priority to the release of civilians and as soon as the release of civilians is accomplished the exchange of prisoners should take place." [158]

137.        The intercommunal talks were then initiated following the UN Secretary-General's visit to Cyprus from 25 to 27 August 1974 [159]. They took place between Acting President Clerides and Vice-President Denktash with the assistance of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Ambassador Weckmann-Munoz, and other UN officials, including a representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and in the presence of a representative of the ICRC [160].

138.        A first preliminary agreement was reached on 6 September 1974 to set up immediately a scheme for the general release of prisoners and detainees, and to give urgent priority in the scheme to the release of sick and wounded prisoners and detainees, and to prisoners and detainees under 18 and over 50 years of age [161].

139.        An agreement of 11 September 1974 provided for the release of certain special categories of prisoners and detainees, including persons under 18, students, teachers and sick and wounded prisoners and detainees [162]. At a further meeting on 13 September 1974 first priority was given to the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners and detainees, and the categories of persons to be released were extended to old people (from. 55), religious, medical and paramedical personnel [163]. The first exchange of sick and wounded prisoners pursuant to the above agreements was arranged by the ICRC with the assistance of UNFICYP end medical and aid organisations of both communities at the Ledra Palace Hotel in Nicosia on 16 September 1974. 116 Greek Cypriots and 126 Turkish Cypriots who were brought to the Hotel in buses were exchanged [164]. The exchange of sick and wounded prisoners and detainees was completed on 21 September 1974, when 111 Turkish Cypriots and 42 Greek Cypriots were released [165].

140.        The ICRC scheme for the release of all remaining prisoners and detainees was adopted in the intercommunal meeting on 20 September 1974 following the completion by the parties concerned of the lists of prisoners and detainees [166]. It was put into operation as from 23 September [167] and, after a temporary interruption connected with the transfer of prisoners from Turkey [168], it was completed on 31 October 1974. According to a UN report of 6 December 1974 [169] a total of 5,816 prisoners was released on both sides under this programme. They were composed as follows:

Greek Cypriots

2,487

Turkish Cypriots

3,308

Greek nationals

9

Turkish nationals

12

141.        It appears, however, that persons in detention centres were not classified as prisoners or detainees, and that the above figure of 2,487 Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees related primarily to persons who were released after their deportation to Turkey. In fact, the majority of them seem to have been deported persons, and only a small portion were persons who had been held in Saray Prison or at Pavlides Garage in Nicosia.

142.        Witness Soulioti stated that these were the two places where prisoners-of-war were detained by the Turkish side in Cyprus [170]. She spoke of a total of 2,526 Greek Cypriot prisoners-of-war who were released, of whom 2,380 had been taken to Turkey [171].

143.        When the intercommunal talks were resumed under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General in Vienna late in April 1975, both sides declared that they were not knowingly holding undeclared prisoners-of-war or other detainees [172]. This affirmation was repeated at the third round of the Vienna talks in August 1975 [173]. But these declarations, too, did apparently not refer to the persons held in detention centres in the north of Cyprus.

144.        The transfer of persons from the detention centres in the north of Cyprus took place under special agreements reached on the intercommunal level in November 1974. Thus it was agreed on 11 November that about 1,500 Greek Cypriots "located" at Voni and Gypsou would be evacuated to the south. According to a UN report the evacuation of Greek Cypriots from Voni was completed on 18 November 1974. The evacuation of those at Gypsou was completed on 30 November, a total of 1,123 were moved to the south, and at the same time some 250 Turkish Cypriots from Mandres were transferred to the north of Cyprus [174].

145.        Witness Soulioti said with regard to the evacuation of detention centres in November 1974:

"The total number of people, in these camps, was 2,440 about, and they were evacuated between 15 November and 29 November 1975." [175]

Asked where they were evacuated to, the witness replied:

"They were brought over by the International Red Cross after an agreement between Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash. They were brought into the Greek side and they were all delivered to the Cyprus Red Cross" (of which the witness is the President) [176].

146.        Finally it appears from the Progress Report on the UN Operation in Cyprus covering the period 7 December 1974 to 9 June 1975 that of 250 Greek Cypriots who had been concentrated in Morphou from surrounding villages all but 21 were evacuated to the south [177].

147.        Most of the oral and written statements of persons who were detained in detention centres do not describe the circumstances of their transfer to the south of Cyprus. There appears to have been, however, a general feeling of relief that they were at last allowed to leave.

148.        As regards the transfer to the south of Cyprus of persons confined to the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia [178], the Commission has found no evidence of specific intercommunal arrangements. While these persons were still under UN protective custody unsuccessful attempts were undertaken by the UN to obtain permission for them to return to their homes [179]. The UN was more successful in the village of Bellapais where out of about 2,000 Greek Cypriots under UN protective custody 100 were allowed to go to their houses and to move freely [180]. With regard to the Dome Hotel it was eventually reported that during the period 7 December 1974 to 9 June 1975 only 53 out of 350 persons who had been confined there remained. Of the 287 persons who left seven were permitted by the Turkish Cypriot authorities to return to their homes in Kyrenia [181], while the remainder were apparently gradually released to the south of Cyprus.

149.        Witness Charalambides, a physician and former Deputy Mayor of Kyrenia who had been in the Dome Hotel since July 1974, stated that he was "deported" from the Dome Hotel on 5 April 1975 after protesting to the Turkish authorities that he had been refused permission to go and see a patient on 21 March. He was given two days' notice to leave Kyrenia: "The message came through the Red Cross from a letter which Mr Denktash wrote to Mr Clerides, that if I did not leave in two days' time I would be jailed and interrogated" [182].

(d)         The deportation of Greek Cypriots to the mainland of  Turkey and their eventual relase to the area controlled by the applicant Government

150.        As stated below [183] about 2,000 Greek Cypriot men were deported to and subsequently detained in Turkey. The applicant Government speak of their "forced expatriation" [184]. It is not clear, however,  what extent these persons' displacement from their homes continued after their return to Cyprus and, more particularly, after their release to the area controlled by the applicant Government. A certain portion at least were soldiers of the National Guard and it may be assumed that some of them were residents of the area still controlled by the applicant Government, to which they returned. Some of the civilians who were deported may equally have been residents of that area. In fact, Witness Pirkettis stated that he had only been in the north on holiday when he was taken prisoner [185].

151.        On the other hand it appears from a number of oral and written statements that soldiers of the National Guard and other persons who were deported were arrested in their homes, or after the eviction from their homes in the north of Cyprus. In this respect the Commission refers to evidence mentioned above [186].

152.        The arrangements for the release of persons who had been deported to Turkey were apparently included in the general arrangements for the exchange of special categories of prisoners and detainees, and for the release of all remaining prisoners and detainees under an ICRC scheme. The UN documents available on this matter do not distinguish between persons deported to Turkey and other prisoners and detainees. In fact, the majority of Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees who were released on the basis of the Geneva Declaration of 30 July 1974 and the pursuant intercommunal agreements concerning "prisoners and detainees" seem to have been persons who had been deported to Turkey [187].

153.        Thus it was specially mentioned in a UN document of 18 September 1974 that the second exchange pursuant to the intercommunal agreement of 13 September 1974 awaited the return of sick and wounded Greek Cypriot prisoners from Turkey [188].

154.        According to a UN report of 3 October 1974 [189] the general release of prisoners and detainees was temporarily suspended on 25 September 1974 for two reasons: the remaining Greek Cypriot prisoners had not as yet returned from Turkey, and some 164 Greek Cypriot detainees who had opted to return to their homes in areas under Turkish control had not been permitted to do so by the Turkish forces and were being held in the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia [190].

These difficulties were, however, overcome at the intercommunal meeting of 30 September 1974. The agreement reached at this meeting states i.a.

"a)         ... Arrangements are in hand for the return of Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees from Turkey.

b)         Stranded Greek Cypriots whose normal residence is in Greek Cypriot areas shall be given facilities to return to their homes. The same applies to Turkish Cypriots ..." [191].

155.        Pursuant to these agreements, 106 Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees were returned to their villages in Karpasia on 2 October, 35 returned to the village of Bellapais and 4 to Morphou on 3 Ootober - all under Turkish control. Nineteen opted to come to the south, and they were handed over to the Greek Cypriot authorities through ICRC on 3 October at Ledra Palace [192].

According to the UN Secretary-General's progress report of 6 December 1974 on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus there were altogether 533 Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees who went to their villages in the north (i.e. approximately 20% of the 2,487 who were released) [193].

156.        It is not clear whether the Greek Cypriot prisoners who were allowed to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus had all been detained in Turkey. The Commission notes, however, that the applicant Government referred axclusively to 'ex-prisoners detained in Turkey and now residing in the Turkish occupied areas' as being under a duty to report to the local, police twice a day [194].

157.        In addition to the documentary evidence in publications of the United Nations the Comission also obtained some direct evidence on the release of prisoners from Turkey. Thus it appears from the statement of witness Pirkettis that the prisoners were not asked or told beforehand where they were going to be released. They were just brought back to Cyprus and set free at the Ledra Palace Hotel [195].

158.        At the Cyprus Broadcasting studios in Nicosia the Commission's Delegation saw two films of the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation showing the arrival of released prisoners of war, to which Mr. Pirkettis had previously referred [196].

(e)         Negotiated transfer, for humanitarian reasons, of  medical cases and other persons to the area controlled by the applicant Government

159.        In addition to the transfer, en bloc, of certain groups of Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees as described above [197], a number of individuals were brought to the area controlled by the applicant Government for humanitarian reasons. They were usually transferred with the assistance of either the ICRC or UNFICYP, on the basis of general or special arrangements.

160.        In particular, an intercommunal agreement reached on 30 September 1974 provided for facilities to be given to persons in need of medical treatment, including expectant mothers, to go to their respective sides to be treated in hospitals or clinics or by doctors there [198].

161.        The task of the sub-committee on humanitarian matters set up pursuant to a decision by MM. Clerides and Denktash of 17 January 1975 included the transfer to the south and north, respectively, of stranded Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot children [199].

162.        Apart from these general measures some oases were apparently discussed individually at the intercommunal talks, especially in private meetings between MM. Clerides and Denktash at the end of each session. Thus witness Soulioti mentioned that a 16 year-old boy who had survived a mass killing was transferred. on 7 June 1975 on the intervention of Mr. Clerides [200]. Witness Stylianou stated that he had drawn Mr. Clerides' attention to the necessity of the transfer, of certain girls who had been raped [201].

163.        The actual transfer was carried out in each case with the assistance of the ICRC or the UN. Thus a UN report of 6 December 1974 mentioned that UNCIVPOL [202] had assisted to a considerable extent in the humanitarian relief programme, i.e. by providing escorts for the evacuation of persons on medical or other grounds [203]. A further UN report covering the period up to 9 June 1975 stated that UNFICYP medical officers examined cases being considered for evacuation [204].

164.        The accounts of individual cases given by witnesses before the Commission's Delegation show that often considerable obstacles had to be overcome until the transfer could eventually be arranged.

Thus, in the case reported by witness Soulioti of a 16 year-old boy who was eventually transferred on the intervention of Mr. Clerides, there was a previous attempt of the UN High Commissioner of Refugees, Prince Saddrudin Aga Khan, to take him with him when he visited the north of Cyprus on 23 August 1974. But a Turkish officer intervened and took the boy out of the High Commissioner's car. According to the witness, this incident was filmed and shown on TV [205].

Witness Dr. Charalambides, the former Deputy Mayor of Kyrenia who had continued to practise medicine while being confined to the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia, spoke of the transfer of emergency cases to the Government-controlled areas which he had managed to arrange with the assistance of the Red Cross, although he had encountered great difficulties in some cases [206].

Another witness, Dr. Hadjikakou, reported the case of one of his patients who, after several months of detention, was handed over to Mr Clerides at Mr Denktash's office on 7 August 1975 [207].

Witness Kaniklides stated that the UN had transferred himself and his paralysed mother from the old city of Famagusta to the Government-controlled area after they had been informed by his relatives. Considerable time passed until they finally got the permission to leave [208].

165.        At the third round of the Vienna talks it was generally agreed on the intercommunal level that the Greek Cypriots then in the north of the island were free to stay, but would be permitted to move to the south at their own request and Without having been subjected to any kind of pressure [209].

An interim report of the UN Secretary General of 13 September 1975 stated that 149 Greek Cypriots had been permitted to move to the south on that basis [210].

IV.         The refusal to allow the return of displaced persons

166.        As mentioned above [211], a number of Greek Cypriots were allowed to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus on their release from various plaoes of detention. In particular, the UN reported that about 20% of the "prisoners and detainees" were allowed to return to the north of Cyprus under the provisions of an intercommunal agreement of 30 September 1974. Moreover, some of the persons confined to the Kyrenia Dome Hotel were eventually allowed to return to their homes in the northern area.

167.        As regards persons displaced to the area controlled by the applicant Government, either by their flight, or by their expulsion. or negotiated transfer from the north of Cyprus, the evidence shows that not more than 1,000 of then were allowed to return to their homes in the north. They belonged to specific categories of persons (e.g. priests and teachers) who were treated as exceptional cases[212].

168.        The displaced persons in the south were physically prevented from returning to the northern area as a result of the fact that the demarcation line ("green line" in Nicosia) was sealed off by the Turkish army. Members of the Commission's Delegation have themselves crossed this line at Ledra Palace checkpoint in Nicosia [213] and seen the roadblocks in the other parts of Nicosia. According to UN reports both sides consolidated their defensive positions outside Nicosia by fortifications along the demarcation line and, in particular, extensive minefields [214]. The access to areas controlled by the Turkish forces and to villages in the north in-which Greek Cypriots remained was restricted even for UNFICYP [215], and the movement of Greek Cypriots in these areas was subjected to general. restrictions [216].

169.        The following examples were given by witnesses of unsuccessful attempts of displaced Greek Cypriots to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus:

-         Witness Odysseos stated that during the first phase of the Turkish military operation in July 1974, some refugees at Morphou tried to return to Lapithos, Karavas, Ayios Georgios and Vavylas. They were not allowed to enter those places and thus forced to return to Morphou [217].

-         Witness Andronikou stated that the owner of the Famagusta Palace Hotel, of British origin and married to a Greek Cypriot, told him that she made various unsuccessful attempts to go back to see her hotel after having left. She finally managed to visit Famagusta in September 1974 with representatives of embassies whom the Turkish military forces had allowed to go there with an escort [218].

-         Witness Kaniklides stated that immediately after the actual fighting in August 1974 quite a number of people tried to return to Famagusta, but all were caught and some deported to Turkey [219].

-         Witness Hadjikakou stated that he went back to Turkish occupied Famagusta after the case-fire, on 18 or 19 August 1974, and apparently nothing happened to him then, but he was later prevented from going there again [220].

170.        Evidence showing that a large group of displaced Greek Cypriots unsuccessfully asserted their claim to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus is the large demonstration of Greek Cypriot women (supported by non-Cypriot women) which took place, apparently under the motto "Women Walk Home", at Dherinia, south east of Famagusta, on 20 April 1975 [221].

171.        As regards proceedings in the United Nations concerning the return of displaced persons to their homes in the north of Cyprus, the General Assembly, in Resolution 3212 (XXIX) of 1 November 1974 [222], considered "that all the refugees should return to their homes in safety" and called upon the parties concerned "to undertake urgent measures to that end". The Security Council endorsed this Resolution on 13 December 1974 and requested the Secretary General to report on its implementation [223].

172.        On 24 January 1975 the Secretary General asked the parties concerned to provide him with all relevant information concerning steps taken or contemplated by them. However, formal replies were only received from Cyprus and Greece [224]. The Greek Government stated that their efforts to press for the implementation of the provision "that all refugees should return to their homes in safety" had been of no avail. In each case the Turkish side had replied that this question was a political one and should be solved within the framework of a political settlement [225].

173.        On 13 February 1975 the UN Commission on Human Rights, referring to General Assembly Resolution 3212 (XXIX), also called upon all parties concerned to work towards the full restoration of human rights to the population of Cyprus and to undertake urgent measures for the return of all refugees to their homes in safety [226].

174.        On 20 November 1975 the UN General Assembly reiterated its call upon the parties concerned to undertake urgent measures to facilitate the voluntary return of all refugees to their homes in safety, and to settle all other aspects of the refugee problem, and urged all parties to refrain from unilateral actions, in contravention of Resolution 3212, including changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus [227].

Turkey was the only State which voted against this Resolution [228].In the preceding general debate in the plenary cf the General Assembly the representative of Turkey stated that troop withdrawal and refugee settlement could not be negotiated out of context; they were part of an overall solution that would have to be arrived at. He also denied the applicant Government's allegation that Turkey was changing the demographic composition of northern Cyprus by importing settlers from the Turkish mainland, and stated that she was only bringing in Turkish Cypriot labourers in order to meet a labour shortage; those workers had originally fled from Cyprus because of persecution [229].

175.        On 27 February 1976 the UN Commission on Human Rights, expressing concern about the lack of progress in the implementation of its previous Resolution and the continuing plight of the displaced persons in Cyprus, urging all parties to refrain from unilateral changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus, adopted a Resolution along the same lines as the General Assembly Resolution of 20 November 1975 [230].

176.        Apart from the above proceedings in the General Assembly and the Security Council, Turkish action in the United Nations concerning the return of displaced Greek Cypriots to the north of Cyprus included the transmission, for circulation as official UN documents, of relevant statements by representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community. Thus the Turkish Permanent Representative to the United Nations:

-         transmitted a protest letter by the President of a Turkish Cypriot women's organisation against the Greek Cypriot women's march of 20 April 1975 [231], stating i.a. that after the denials of human rights suffered by Turkish Cypriots it was absolutely impossible for them to exist intermingled with the Greek Cypriots [232];

-         transmitted in May 1975, shortly before the second round of the intercommunal talks in Vienna, a letter from Mr Denktash complaining that the applicant Government continued to use the refugee problem, which in fact existed on both sides, as a political tool against the Turkish side, making the return of the refugees a precondition of any political solution. In view of the political and security implications involved in the return of refugees this could only be regarded as an irresponsible and unrealistic approach [233];

-         transmitted in June 1975 a further letter from Mr Denktach stating that the return of refugees was a matter to be settled within the framework of a final solution to the Cyprus problem [234].

177.        The views of the Turkish Cypriot authorities on the question of the return of displaced Greek Cypriots to the north of Cyprus - views which are apparently supported by the Turkish Government - have been stated as follows in the proclamation of 13 February 1975 of a Turkish Federated State of Cyprus [235]:

"The Council of Ministers and the Legislative Assembly of the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration ....

…….

Have come to the conclusion that there is no possibility of their living together with the Greek Cypriot cofounders of the Republic of Cyprus;

Having come to the conclusion that the only way for bringing tranquillity, security and permanent peace to the island is for the two communities to live side by side in their respective region, developing their own internal structure ...."

178.        The issue of the return of Greek Cypriot displaced persons to the north was apparently also included among the subjects of the political talks on the intercommunal level, in particular at the meetings in Vienna.

The communiqué issued at the end of the first round of the Vienna talks mentions that there was a detailed examination of the question of displaced persons and of the geographical aspects of a possible future settlement in Cyprus [236].

After the second round of the Vienna talks, the UN Secretary General observed that the deadlock over the fundamental basis of a settlement persisted, one of the principle difficulties being the difference of opinion on priorities to be given to the different aspects of a future settlement, one side wishing first to establish the powers and functions of the central government, the other wishing first to clarify the territorial aspects which had a vital bearing on the refugee problem [237].

A limited agreement was finally reached at the third round of the Vienna talks (31 July - 2 August 1975). It provided, in connection with an arrangement concerning permission for Turkish Cypriots in the south to go to the north, and for Greek Cypriots in the south to go to the north, and for Greek Cypriots in the north to stay or go to the south if they wanted to do so, that

"Priority will be given to the reunification Of families, which may also involve the transfer of a number of Greek Cypriots, at present in the south, to the north." [238]

A UN report of 13 September 1975 stated that by then 296 Greek Cypriots had been transferred to the north with UNFICYP assistance under this agreement, and that 14 more including 8 teachers were due to be moved on 16 September 1975 [239].

V.         Separation of families brought  about by the displacement of Greek  Cypriots

179.        There is evidence that the displacement of Greek Cypriots from their homes in the north of Cyprus led to the separation of many families.

180.        During the refugee movement of Greek Cypriots provoked by the Turkish military action in the two phases of actual fighting in July and August 1974 a number of persons, mainly old people, invalids, women and children, were left behind by their families and became enclaved. This has been confirmed by some witnesses (including witness Kaniklides who stayed with his mother in Famagusta while other members of his family left) [240], persons interviewed in refugee camps [241] and in many written statements submitted by the applicant Government [242]. A UN report also mentions this fact [243].

181.        There is evidence that the displacement of Greek Cypriots within the north of Cyprus following the phases of actual fighting brought about further separations of families by the transfer of men and their families to different places of detention [244], or by the detention of men and the expulsion of their families across the demarcation line. This is confirmed by the testimony of witness Pirkettis who was a victim of such measures [245]. It was also mentioned by other witnesses [246], persons interviewed in refugee camps [247] and in many written statements submitted by the applicant Government (1#63-0).

182.        The transfer of detained Greek Cypriots to the south of Cyprus under the relevant intercommunal agreements apparently did not cause further separations of families on a large scale. The UN reported that Turkish Cypriot prisoners released under these agreements often opted to go north although their families still remained in Turkish Cypriot enclaves in the south [248], but nothing of the kind was stated with regard to Greek Cypriots, and it appears that the 20% of the Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees who were eventually allowed to return to their homes in the north, mainly in the Karpasia area, joined their families there, while those who opted to go south also had their families in the south [249]. The intercommunal agreements on the release of prisoners therefore seem to have led to the reunification of Greek Cypriot families rather than to their separation.

183.        A number of Greek Cypriot families, however, was still separated after the negotiated transfers, and this situation was prolonged by the refusal to allow the return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the north.

The problem was apparently discussed on the intercommunal level and some partial solutions were gradually reached, e.g. by the programme for the transfer of stranded children on both sides [250]. An agreement on the reunification of families was finally concluded at the third round of the Vienna talks in July/August 1975 [251]. However, even that agreement had only a limited effect. Some witnesses stated that the persons whom they actually allowed to return were selected by the Turks [252].

184.        Witness Iacovou stated that after the agreement there were still separated families. Their number, however, could not be very big with only 10,000 enclaved Greek Cypriots in the north. It also depended on what one considered as a family unit. There was an enlarged family concept in Cyprus, and in his view also a larger family unit would probably suffer as a result of the separation. The witness was prepared to submit statistical material on the number of separated families and the degree of relationship of those separated [253].

D. Evaluation of the evidence obtained

I.         General

185.        Since it is common knowledge that the overwhelming majority of the Greek Cypriot population from the northern area has been displaced as a consequence of the Turkish military action in 1974 the Commission does not consider that specific evidence corroborating this is needed. As regards the number of persons affected, the Commission accepts as credible the figures mentioned by witness Iacovou, i.e. about 182,000 displaced Greek Cypriots in September 1975 [254].

II.         Movement of persons provoked by the military action  of Turkey

186.        The Commission considers that the evidence before it shows that the vast majority of displaced Greek Cypriots left the north of Cyprus as a direct consequence of the military action of Turkey.

Many fled during the first phase of this operation from the areas where actual fighting took place, or from areas considered to be in danger of becoming the theatre of military operations. There then developed in the Greek Cypriot population a sentiment of fear and horror about the reported conduct of the Turkish troops - a sentiment convincingly described by witnesses 0dysseos and Kaniklides who came from places as far apart as Morphou and Famagusta [255] - and, during the second phase of the military action, whole areas were evacuated by their Greek Cypriot residents before the Turkish army reached them [256].

187.        The Commission has not included in its examination those some 20,000 refugees who only temporarily left their homes in the south near the demarcation line [257].

188.        The Commission was not able to establish the exact figure of persons who fled. It assumed, however, that they were more than 170,000 since all other categories of displaced persons together make up only a few thousand out of the above-mentioned total of 182,000.

III.         Measures of displacement not directly connected with the  Turkish military action in the phases of actual fighting

189.        The Commission considers that the evidence before it establishes that a large number of Greek Cypriots who remained in the north of Cyprus after the arrival of the Turkish troops were uprooted from their normal surroundings and temporarily subjected to various measures of displacement.

(a)         Eviction from houses and transportation to other  places within the north of Cyprus

190.        The range of these measures included the eviction of Greek Cypriots from houses including their own houses, the assembling of them at certain places, forcible excursions to other places where they were held for periods ranging from several hours to several days, and their transfer to prisons, detention centres or other detention places.

Such measures were not only described in a considerable number of individual statements, some of them corroborating each other, including statements made orally to the Commission's Delegation in Cyprus. They were also confirmed in reports of the United Nations and of the International Committee of the Red Cross which leave no doubt as to their correctness [258].

(b)         Expulsion across the demarcation line

191.        The Commission finds it established that there was an organised operation for the expulsion of the remaining civilian population of some villages in the Kyrenia district (Trimithi, Ayios Georgios, Karmi) to the south of Cyprus by driving them in buses to the green line at the Ledra Palace Hotel in Nicosia on 2 August 1974. Several persons gave the Commission's Delegation a detailed description of these events, which were also confirmed in written statements submitted to the Commission. Moreover, witness Soulioti saw the arrival of these expellees and arranged their accommodation, and a UN report based on UNFICYP sources apparently concerns the same events although no places or names are mentioned [259].

192.        Taking into account its above finding, the Commission finds strong indications that the other group expulsions mentioned by witness Soulioti [260] also happened in the way described. This concerns in particular the alleged expulsion of persons from the Karpasia area in June 1975, which was also mentioned by a number of other witnesses. The Commission's Delegation saw a film of persons who stated that they were expelled in June 1975, and they were also given a copy of an official letter to the ICRC in Nicosia protesting against these expulsions. However, the Commission has been unable to establish whether applications for transfer to the south are made by a number of these persons and, if so, whether such applications were made voluntarily.

193.        With regard to other group expulsions, especially those during the second phase of the Turkish military operation, the Commission disposes only of hearsay evidence.

(c)         Negotiated transfer of  prisoners and detainees, including those detained in Turkey

194.        The fact that several thousand Greek Cypriot prisoners and detainees, including those detained in Turkey, became displaced as a consequence of their transfer and release to the south of Cyprus under the provisions of the Geneva Declaration and various intercommunal agreements is common knowledge [261].

195.        The Commission has not fully investigated to which extent these persons had an option to return to their homes in the north of Cyprus. It observes that the permission for the return of 20% of the prisoners from Turkey to their homes in the north of Cyprus could only be achieved with difficulties, but one could assume in the circumstances that the remainder of this group of prisoners were persons who had actually opted for their release to the south [262]. On the other hand it appears from the testimony of witness Perkettis that prisoners were not asked where they wanted to be released [263].

196.        With regard to persons who had been detained in detention centres in the north of Cyprus, the Commission finds it established that they were virtually barred from returning to their homes in the north of Cyprus. Only very few of them were released in the north. This is recorded in public documents of the United Nations [264]. Moreover, the statements made by the UNHCR and ICRC representatives at the intercommunal meeting of 7 February 1975 [265], the record of which the Commission accepts as correct, indicate that the will of these persons to remain in the areas under Turkish control was broken by the conditions imposed on them. Mr Zuger expressly stated, "They want to go south because they are not allowed to go back to their homes". In addition, some witnesses conveyed their impression that the detention centres were a special device for the evacuation of the Greek Cypriot population from the north of Cyprus [266]. As a result of the non-participation by the respondent Government in the proceedings on the merits, the Commission has been unable further to investigate the purposes of those centres. It notes, however, that the detainees were eventually moved to the south on the basis of agreements concluded by the applicant Government with the Turkish Cypriot administration. In the light of the above the Commission finds a strong indication that evacuation of the Greek Cypriot population was a purpose of the detention centres.

197.        The evidence before the Commission is clear as regards the circumstances of the displacement to the south of persons confined to the Kyrenia Dome Hotel [267]. The Commission finds it established that the great majority of these persons were not allowed to return to their homes in Kyrenia. In this respect it accepts as credible the testimony of witness Charalambides, which is supported by UN documents. However, the UN reports do not state on what basis these persons were transferred to the south. The treatment of Dr Charalambides may be due to his prominent role as the only Greek Cypriot physician in the area and as former Deputy Mayor of Kyrenia. It cannot, therefore, be considered as representative.

(d)         Negotiated transfer of medical cases and  other persons on humanitarian grounds

198.        Finally, the transfer to the south of medical cases and other persons for humanitarian reasons, whether on the basis of intercommunal agreements or individual arrangements, would appear to have been in the own interest of the persons concerned; indeed, it often happened upon their own request. The evidence before the Commission tends to show that the particular difficulty experienced by this category of persons was the removal of obstacles preventing their speedy transfer. The Commission, therefore, was unable to establish that their transfer, as such, was a forcible measure [268].

IV.         The refusal to allow the return of refugees and expellees

199.        It is common knowledge that the vast majority of Greek Cypriot displaced persons in the south of Cyprus have not returned to their homes in the north. While it may be that a number of these persons do not want to return to an area at present under Turkish Cypriot administration, the fact remains that they are physically prevented from even visiting their houses in the north, and that they are not allowed to return there permanently. This has been established by the relevant UN documents, including reports on the implementation of resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council calling for such return, and is confirmed by the direct evidence obtained by the Commission's Delegation in Cyprus [269].

V.         Separation of Greek Cypriot families brought about by their displacement

200.        The Commission finds it established that, by the measures of displacement affecting a large number of Greek Cypriots, a substantial number of families were separated for considerable periods of time ranging from several days to more than a year. The refusal to allow the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus prolonged this situation and the intercommunal agreement of August 1975 did not completely solve the problem [270]. The Commission has not been able, in the course of its limited investigation [271], to establish the exact numbers of persons and families affected.

E. Responsibility of Turkey under the Convention

I.         Movement of persons provoked by the military action of Turkey in the phases of actual fighting, and refusal to allow the return of refugees to the north of Cyprus

201.        In its decision on the admissibility of the present applications the Commission examined the question whether the responsibility of Turkey was engaged because "persons or property in Cyprus have in the course of her military action come under her actual authority and responsibility at the material times". The Commission concluded that the armed forces of Turkey brought any other persons or property in Cyprus "within the jurisdiction" of Turkey, in the sense of Art. 1 of the Convention, "to the extent that they exercise control over such persons or property" [272].

202.        The Commission has considered the question of the imputability to Turkey, under the Convention, of the movement of persons provoked by her military action [273]. However it does not think it necessary or useful to answer this question, having regard to its finding, set out in the following paragraph as to the refusal to allow refugees to return to their homes in the northern area of Cyprus.

203.        As regards this refusal, the evidence before the Commission shows that Turkey encouraged and actively supported the policy of the Turkish Cypriot administration not to allow the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus. This support was not limited to diplomatic action such as declarations against the return of Greek Cypriots to the north of Cyprus in the General Assembly of the United Nations [274], votes cast against resolutions calling for such return [275], and transmission of statements by representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community opposing such return [276]. It also included the prevention, by the presence of her army in the north of Cyprus and the sealing off of the demarcation line by fortifications and minefields, of the physical possibility of the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north [277]. The Commission considers that by these measures preventing their return to the north, Turkey exercised in effect a control which in this respect brought the said persons under her jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. 1 of the Convention as interpreted in the Commission's decision on admissibility. The refusal to allow the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus must therefore be imputed to Turkey under the Convention.

II.         Measures of displacement not directly connected with the Turkish military action in the phases of actual fighting

(a)         Measures of displacement within the northern area of  Cyprus and expulsion across the  demarcation line

204.        The Commission finds it established that Turkish troops actively participated in the following measures of displacement [278]:

-         eviction of Greek Cypriots from houses including their own homes in the north of Cyprus;

-         transportation of Greek Cypriots to other places within the territory controlled by the Turkish army, including various detention places;

-         expulsion of Greek Cypriots across the demarcation line; and

-         removal to the south brought about by living conditions in the north [279].

These measures were carried out while the persons concerned were under the actual control of the Turkish armed forces and hence within the jurisdiction of Turkey in the meaning of Art. 1 of the Convention as interpreted in the Commission's above decision. The displacement of Greek Cypriots from their homes, which was the result of these measures, must therefore be imputed to Turkey under the Convention.

(b)         Negotiated transfer of persons to the area controlled by the applicant Government, and  refusal to allow their return to the north  of Cyprus

205.        The Commission has considered the question of the imputability to Turkey of the negotiated transfer of persons to the south of Cyprus [280]. However, it does not think it necessary or useful to answer this question, having regard to its finding as to the refusal to allow transferred persons to return to their homes in the northern area.

As regards this refusal, the situation of persons transferred to the south of Cyprus under the various intercommunal agreements is the same as that of refugees; the refusal to allow the return of transferred persons to their homes in the north of Cyprus must be imputed to Turkey on the same grounds as the refusal to allow the return of refugees [281].

III.         Separation of families

206.        The separation of Greek Uypriot families resulting from measures of displacement imputable to Turkey under the Convention, for the reasons set out above, must be imputed to Turkey on the same grounds. It follows that the continued separation of families resulting from the refusal to allow thee return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes and family members in the north must be imputed to Turkey as well as the separation of families brought about by expulsions of certain family members across the demarcation line or by transfers of members of the same family to different places of detention [282].

F. Conclusions

I.         General

207.        The Commission has examined the complaints concerning the displacement of Greek Cypriots under Art. 8 of the Convention [283]. It notes that Protocol No.4 concerning such rights as inter alia the right to liberty of movement and choice of residence has not been ratified by the Parties. In any case, Art. 8 is not affected by the Protocol.

II.         Movement of persons provoked by the military action of  Turkey in the phases of actual fighting and refusal to  allow the return of refugees

208.        As stated above [284], the Commission did not express an opinion as to the imputability to Turkey under the Convention of the refugee movement of Greek Cypriots caused by the Turkish military action in the phases of actual fighting. Since in any case the refusal to allow the return of those refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus must be imputed to Turkey, the Commission also limits its conclusion to this aspect of the matter.

The Commission considers that the prevention of the physical possibility of the return of Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus amounts to an infringement, imputable to Turkey, of their right to respect of their homes as guaranteed in Art. 8 (1) of the Convention. This infringement cannot be justified on any ground under para. (2) of this Article.

The Commission concludes by 13 votes against one that, by the refusal to allow the return of more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north of Cyprus, Turkey did not act, and was continuing not to act [285], in conformity with Art. 8 of the Convention in all these cases.

III.         Measures of displacement not directly connected with the Turkish militar action in the phases of actual fighting

(a)         Measures of displacement within the north of Cyprus and expulsions across the demarcation line

209.        The Commission considers that the evictions of Greek Cypriots from houses, including their own homes, which are imputable to Turkey under the Convention, amount to an interference with rights guaranteed under Art. 8, para. (1) of the Convention, namely the right of these persons to respect for their home, and/or their right to respect for private life. The Commission further considers that the transportation of Greek Cypriots to other places, in particular the forcible excursions within the territory controlled by the Turkish army, and the deportation of Greek Cypriots to the demarcation line, which are equally imputable to Turkey under the Convention, also constitute an interference with their private life. However, in so far as the displacement of Greek Cypriots within the north of Cyprus was a necessary corollary of their detention, it must, together with that detention, be examined in Chapter 2 (deprivation of liberty).

The above interferences by the Turkish army in the north of Cyprus with rights guaranteed under Art. 8 para. (1) cannot be justified on any ground under para.(2) of Art. 8.

The Commission concludes, by 12 votes against one, that by the eviction of Greek Cypriots from houses, including their own homes, by their transportation to other places within the north of Cyprus, or by their deportation across the demarcation line, Turkey has committed acts not in conformity with the right to respect for the home guaranteed in Art. 8 of the Convention.

(b)         Negotiated transfer of persons to the area controlled by the applicant Government, and refusal to allow their return to their  homes in the north of Cyprus

210.        As stated above [286], the Commission did not express an opinion as to the imputability to Turkey under the Convention of the transfers of Greek Cypriots to the south of Cyprus under various intercommunal agreements. Since in any case the refusal to allow the return of these persons to their homes in the north of Cyprus must be imputed to Turkey, the Commission limits its conclusion to this aspect of the matter.

The Commission considers that the prevention of the physical possibility of the return of these Greek Cypriots to their homes in the north of Cyprus amounts to an infringement of their right to respect of their homes as guaranteed in Art. 8 (1) of the Convention. This infringement cannot be justified on any ground under para. (2) of this Article.

The Commission concludes, by 13 votes against one, that, by the refusal to allow the return to their homes in the north of Cyprus to several thousand Greek Cypriots who had been transferred to the south under intercommunal agreements, Turkey did not act, and was continuing not to act [287] in conformity with Art. 8 of the Convention in all these cases.

IV.         Separation of families

211.        The Commission finds that the separation of families brought about by measures of displacement imputable to Turkey under the Convention [288] are interferences with the right of the persons concerned to respect for their family life as guaranteed by Art. 8 (1) of the Convention. These interferences cannot be justified on any ground under para. (2) of this Article.

The Commission concludes by 14 votes against one with one abstention that, by the separation of Greek Cypriot families brought about by measures of displacement in a substantial number of cases, Turkey has again not acted in conformity with her obligations under Art. 8 of the Convention.

V.         Reservation concerning Art. 15 of the Convention

212.        The Commission reserves for consideration in Part III of this Report the question whether any of the above interferences with rights protected by Art. 8 were justified as emergency measures under Art. 15 of the Convention.


Table of Contents <-Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next->

Notes:

[63] Cf. Particulars I, para. 9.

[64] Particulars I, para. 8.

[65] Particulars I, paras.22, 24.

[66] Particulars I, para. 20 I; Particulars II, para. 12 k; as regards detention in Turkey see also below, Chapters 2 C and 4 B.

[67] Particulars I, paras. 20 G and 22 B (iv); Particulars II, para. 12 c (iii).

[68] Particulars I, para. 22 B, second sub-paragraph.

[69] Telex communication from the applicant Government of 2 July 1975.

[70] Telex communication from the applicant Government of 10 May 1976.

[71] Particulars I, paras.20 C and 23; Particulars II, para. 2 12 c (i). See also below Chapters 2 B and 4 B.

[72] Particulars II, para. 12 C (ii); see also the applicant Government's telex of 10 May 1976 for cases of ill-treatment which allegedly happened in 1976.

[73] Particulars II, paras. 20 F and 24; Particulars para. 12 f; telex communications from the applicant Government of 26 June 1975, para. B, and of 22 October 1975, according to which the movement of Turkish settlers had been intensified and was done on a systematic and big scale basis "with the object of altering the racial balance of the island".

[74] Particulars I, para. 20 C; Particulars II, para. 12 c.

[75] Appendix "A" to applicant Government's observations on the admissibility of Application I, para. 11.

[76] Telex communication from the applicant Government of 2 July 1975.

[77] Ibid.

[78] See Part I, para. 23.

[79] Application I, para. 3.

[80] About 9,000 were moved pursuant to an Anglo-Turkish arrangement in January 1975 from the British Sovereign Base Area at Episkopi where they had sought refuge, and about 8,000 were moved pursuant to the inter-communal agreement reached of the third round of the Vienna talks in August 1975.

[81] See Part I, para. 15 above.

[82] UN Docs. S/11353 and Add. 1-33; S/11468 and Add, 1-4; S/11488/Add. 2; S/11568; S/11717 covering the period up to June 1975.

[83] See para. 102 above.

[84] The Refugee Camp Orphanage School, Nicosia and Refugee Camp Stavros; cf interviews with persons in these camps on pp. 1-15 of the Addendum.

[85] Verbatim Record, pp. 5-6. Further figures mentioned by Mrs Soulioti: 22.7.1974 - 3,000 refugees, 30-7-1974 -15,000.

[86] Verbatim Record, p. 159.

[87] Para. 102 above.

[88] Council of Europe Doc. 3566, tiara. 13.

[89] UN Doc. S/11717, para. 34.

[90] Verbatim Record, p. 5.

[91] Verbatim Record, pp. 167 and 174.

[92] Cf para. 104 above and Verbatim Record p. 165.

[93] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 2, para. 13.

[94] Verbatim Record, p. 5

[95] Verbatim Record, pp. 90 and 180. See also Chapters 3 and 4 below.

[96] Verbatim Record, pp. 89-90. A UN report of 15 August 1974 (S/11353/Add. 27 para. 4) states that Morphou was evacuated "by the National Guard and civilians".

[97] Verbatim Record, p. 180.

[98] Verbatim Record, pp. 173-174.

[99] Cf Verbatim Record, pp. 197-198 and 204-205; see also statements I, Nos. 59, 60 and 82 which refer to the same incidents.

[100] Verbatim Record, p. 73.

[101] See para. 110 above.

[102] See Para. 110 above.

[103] Verbatim Record, pp. 181-182.

[104] Ibid. p. 184.

[105] Verbatim Record, pp. 105-106

[106] Addendum : pp. 4-5.

[107] Addendum : p. 9.

[108] Addendum : pp. 13-14.

[109] As regards the restrictions imposed on so-called enclaved persons, see Chapter 2 A below.

[110] Cf e.g. Statements I, Nos 2, 46, 52, 58, 70, 81, 83, 90.

[111] See paras. 117-122 below.

[112] See paras. 123-130 below.

[113] See paras. 131-149 below.

[114] See paras. 150-158 below.

[115] See paras. 159-165 below.

[116] Addendum, pp. 1-12.

[117] Verbatim Record, pp. 198, 205.

[118] Verbatim Record, pp. 126-127.

[119] Cf e.g. the statement of witness Pirkettis, Verbatim Record, p. 42 and Statements I Nos 1, 3, 12, 13, 14, 29, 32, 41, 49, 50, 53, 68.

[120] Cf e.g. Statements I Nos 3, 21, 33, 36, 47, 49 and 51.

[121] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15 para. 8 a).

[122] Verbatim Record, pp. 41-44.

[123] Ibid., D. 57.

[124] Addendum, pp. 6-8.

[125] Statements I, Nos 3, 4, 68, 92 (Trimithi) and 69 (Karmi).

[126] See Chapter 2 C below.

[127] See Chapter 2 B below.

[128] Addendum pp. 22-23.

[129] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para. 18 a).

[130] Verbatim Record, p. 7. According to this witness "a few people ..... were sort of mopped up from the villages west of Kyrenia in the first phase and put in the Dome Hotel".

[131] Verbatim Record, p. 73.

[132] Cf. Chapter 2 B below.

[133] The term "demarcation line" designates the dividing line between the territories controlled at the material time by the applicant Government on the one hand and the Turkish forces On the other.- cf para. 14 above.

[134] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para. 8 b.

[135] Verbatim Record, pp. 3-6.

[136] Addendum, pp. 17-19.

[137] Verbatim Record, p. 167.

[138] Ibid., p. 165.

[139] Addendum, pp. 1-3.

[140] Addendum, pp. 6-8.

[141] See para. 120 above.

[142] See para. 298 below.

[143] Verbatim Record, p. 57.

[144] Statements I, Nos 11 (Famagusta), 57 (Mia Milia), 68 (Trimithi), 69 (Karmi) and. 70 (Palekythro).

[145] Cf e.g. Statements I, Nos. 4, 46, 63 and 90.

[146] Statements I, Nos 3, 4, 68 and 92.

[147] Statements I, Nos 13 and 69.

[148] Addendum, p. 92.

[149] Addendum, p. 91.

[150] Addendum, p. 99, film No. 3.

[151] For the various forms of detention, see Chapter 2 below; for conditions of detention, see Chapter 4 B below. As regards detention in Turkey, see also sub-section d) below.

[152] Of the statements by witness Soulioti, Verbatim Record, p. 9, Stylianou, ibid., p. 36, Hadjiloizou, ibid., p. 70, and Iacovou, ibid., pp. 167 and 174-175. Mr. Iacovou spoke of a psychological process of making people ge besides the actual physical process of moving people.

[153] Cf. witnesses Odysseos, Verbatim Record, p. 94 and Iacovou, ibid., p. 163.

[154] Appendix A to their observations on the admissibility of Application I.

[155] See sub-section b) above.

[156] See Part I, para. 13

[157] Reproduced at Appendix IV.

[158] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para. 11.

[159] Cf. UN Docs. S/11468 and S/11568, pares. 62-63.

[160] UN Doc. S/11568, para. (4.

[161] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para. 11.

[162] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 2, para. 17.

[163] Ibid., para 19.

[164] Ibid., para. 20.

[165] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 15.

[166] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 14 b; see also S/11468/Add. 2, para. 20 for the delay caused by the failure to produce the lists of prisoners as agreed on 6 September.

[167] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 15.

[168] See para.154 below.

[169] UN Doc. S/11568, para. 51. (3) Verbatim Record, p. 18.

[170] Ibid., pp. 23-24.

[171] UN Doc, S/11684, Annex.

[172] Press communique of 2 August 1975, UN Doc. S/11789, Annex, p. 2.

[173] UN Doc. 5/11568, para. 47.

[174] Verbatim Record, p. 10.

[175] Ibid.

[176] UN Doc. S/11717, para. 40.

[177] See Chapter 2, paras. 266-273 below.

[178] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 10, para. 6.

[179] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 16, para. 8.

[180] UN Doc. S/11717, para. 40.

[181] Verbatim Record, pp. 73-74.

[182] See Chapter 2 C.

[183] Particulars I, para. 20 I; Particulars II, para. 12k.

[184] Verbatim Record, p. 41.

[185] See para. 121 above.

[186] See para. 141 above.

[187] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 2, para. 23.

[188] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 15.

[189] Cf also the ICRC press release of 25 September 1974 submitted by witness Soulioti, Addendum, p. 24.

[190] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, Para. 16.

[191] Ibid, para. 17.

[192] UN Doc. S/11568, para. 51. The corresponding figure of Turkish Cypriot prisoners and detainees who stayed in the south after their release by the applicant Government is 84, i.e. approximately 4% out of the total of 3,308 Turkish Cypriots who were released.

[193] Particulars II, at pp. 10-11.

[194] Verbatim Record, pp. 51-62.

[195] Addendum, p. 99, films Nos. 2 and 7.

[196] See sub sections(c) and (d) above.

[197] UN Doc. S/11468/Add. 3, para. 16 c.

[198] Cf. UN Doc. 3/11717, para. 47.

[199] Verbatim Record, p. 20.

[200] Verbatim Record, pp. 29 and 34.

[201] The civilian police element of UNFICYP.

[202] UN Doc. S/11568, para. 57.

[203] UN Doc. S/11717, para. 40.

[204] Verbatim Record, pp. 20-21.

[205] Verbatim Record, p. 76.

[206] Verbatim Record, p. 111.

[207] Verbatim Record, pp. 193-195.

[208] UN Doc. S/11789/Annex, p. 1, paras. 2 and 3.

[209] UN Doc. S/11789/Add. 2, para. 4.

[210] Cf paras. 148, 155

[211] See Part I, para. 17, above and para. 178 below.

[212] See Part I, para. 70.

[213] UN Docs. S/1156/8. paras. 27 30 and S/11717, paras. 18, 19 and 21.

[214] UN Docs. 3/11568, paras. 31 33, 8/11624, para. 17 and S/11717, paras. 22-23.

[215] See Chapter 2 A below. Reference is also made to the applicant Governrment's complaint concerning the detention of Greek Cypriots arrested at the demarcation line (cf. para. 88 above).

[216] Verbatim Record, p. 90.

[217] Ibid., p. 127.

[218] Ibid., p. 187.

[219] Ibid., p. ,113.

[220] UN Doc. s/11717, para. 29.

[221] See para. 5 of the Resolution reproduced at Appendix VIII to this Report. The Resolution was adopted by 117 votes against none, with no abstention, Turkey voting for the resolution. The Turkish Foreign Minister, explaining his vote, stated that the refugee problem had both a political and a humanitarian aspect and was closely linked with the political solution of the Cyprus problem. See UN Doc. A/PV.2275 (provisional), at pp. 161 and 162.

[222] Cf. Security Council Resolution 365 (1974).

[223] Cf UN Doc. S/11624, para.. 11 and Annexes F and G.

[224] Ibid., Annex F, para. 2.

[225] Cf. Resolution 4 (MI) of the UN Commission on Human Rights (reproduced at Appendix XI to this Report).

[226] Resolution 3395 (XXX), paras. 4 and 6, reproduced at Appendix IX to this Report.

[227] Cf UN Doc. A/PV.2413 (provisional), at p. 73.

[228] Cf UN Monthly Chronicle, Vol. 12, No 11 (December 1975), p.16.

[229] Resolution 4 (XXXII) of the UN Commission on Human Rights reproduced at Appendix XII to this Report.

[230] Mentioned at para. 170.

[231] UN Doc. S/11679.

[232] UN Doc. S/11706.

[233] UN Doc. S/11718.

[234] See Part I, para. 17 of this Report. The text is reproduced in UN Doc. 5/11624, Annex B.

[235] UN Doc. S/11684, Annex.

[236] UN Doc. S/11717, para. 66.

[237] Press communiqué issued in Vienna on 2 August 1975, UN Doc. S/11789, Annex, point 5. Cf Part I, para. 17, of this Report.

[238] UN Doc. S/11789/Add. 2, para. 4. Cf also the statement of witness Iacovou mentioned in para. 125 above, and similar statements by witnesses Stylianou, Verbatim Record p. 35, and Odysseos, Verbatim Record p. 101, about the limited scope of this agreement.

[239] Verbatim Record, pp. 180-182.

[240] Addendum, pp. 4, 5, 9.

[241] E.g. Statements I, Nos 2, 11, 12, 15, 28, 29, 62, 63, 72.

[242] UN Doc. S/11353/Add. 15, para. 8 a.

[243] Cf Chapter 2 below, para. 314.

[244] Verbatim Record, p. 44.

[245] E.g. Witness Soulioti, Verbatim Record p. 4; witness Iacovou, ibid. p. 167.

[246] Addendum, pp. 1-3, 7, 13.

[247] E.g. Statements I, Nos 3, 21, 22, 23, 34, 46, 49, 62, 69.

[248] UN Doc. S/11568, para. 47.

[249] Cf the statements of witnesses Odysseos, Verbatim Record p. 101, and lacovou, ibid. p. 165.

[250] Cf para. 161 above.

[251] Cf para. 178 above.

[252] Cf the statements of witnesses quoted in footnote (1) above.

[253] Verbatim Record, p. 171.

[254] Cf para. 104 above.

[255] Cf para. 110 above.

[256] Cf paras. 104, 105, 110, 112.

[257] Cf paras. 104, 105.

[258] Cf paras 117-122 above.

[259] Cf paras 123, 124, 126 above.

[260] Para. 124 above.

[261] Cf paras 137-142 above.

[262] Cf paras 154-156 above.

[263] Cf para. 157 above.

[264] Cf para. 144 above.

[265] Cf para. 133 above.

[266] Cf para. 132 above.

[267] Cf paras 148-149 above.

[268] Cf.paras 159 et seq. and 198 above.

[269] Cf paras 166-178 above.

[270] Cf paras 179-183 above.

[271] See Part I, para. 77 above.

[272] See Appendix I, para. 10 of The Law

[273] Cf paras 107 et seq. above.

[274] Cf paras 171-175 above.

[275] Cf para. 174 above.

[276] Cf para. 176 above.

[277] Cf para. 168. above.

[278] Cf paras. 190-193 above.

[279] Cf para. 196 above.

[280] Cf paras 194-197 above. See also para. 204 in fine.

[281] See para. 203 above.

[282] Cf para. 200 above.

[283] For text, see para. 100 above.

[284] See para. 202.

[285] As of 18 May 1976 (see para. 5 above).

[286] See para. 205.

[287] As of 18 May 1976 (see para. 5 above).

[288] Cf paras 179 et seq., 200 and 206 above.

 


www.cyprus-dispute.org