I. THE INVASION AND ITS AFTERMATH (20 JULY 1974 TO 18 MAY 1976 - THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE COMMISSION'S FIRST REPORT).
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Everyone's right to life be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally... (Article 2). Charge laid against Turkey: The Turkish Army embarked upon a systematic course of mass murders of civilians unconnected with any war activity, including women and babies in arms, and of soldiers who had surrendered. Turkish defence: No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected. Commission's verdict: By 14 votes to 1 the Commission, after examining a number of killings at specific places, held that the evidence before it constituted 'strong indications of killings committed on a substantial scale (para. 346). The Commission concluded: "In view of the very detailed material before it on other killings alleged by the applicant Government the Commission, by fourteen votes against one, concludes from the whole evidence that killings happened on a larger scale than in Elia. There is nothing to show that any of these deprivations of life were justified..." (Report, p. 165). Further relevant facts: Greek National Guardsmen and civilians were killed in the field and in bombing raids on civilian targets, including hospitals. In these raids the Turkish Air Force used napalm. These killings were not the subject of the application to the European Commission on Human Rights, being rather breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
DISPLACEMENT OF PERSONS (CREATING REFUGEES). Relevant Article
of the European Convention on Human Rights:
'Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life/and
his home...' (Article 8).
Charge laid against Turkey: The Turkish Army displaced 200,000 Greek Cypriots
(more than one third of the population) from their homes. This was effected
partly by physical expulsion and partly by a systematic campaign of terror,
causing Greek Cypriots to flee in the face of Turkey's advancing armed
forces. Refugees and expellees were not permitted by the Turkish Army to
return to their homes in the Turkish occupied area. Turkish defence: No
answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commissions'
proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected. Commission's
Verdict:
'Displacement of persons'
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'No one
shall be deprived of his liberty... (Article 5).
Charge laid against Turkey: The Turkish armed forces detained thousands
of persons arbitrarily and without lawful authority. On entering any inhabited
area they immediately rounded up all Greek Cypriot inhabitants (many women
and children were hiding in their homes.). On capture men were usually
separated and detained apart from old people, women and children, who were
either put in 'concentration camps or expelled. Of the hundreds kept in
such camps small babies to old people of 90 were crowded together under
atrocious conditions without sanitary facilities at the height of summertime,
when temperatures reach over 40®C. The worst such 'concentration camps
were Voni, Marathovouno, Vitsada and Gypsou. In addition, Turkish authorities
held some 3,000 inhabitants of the Kyrenia district in the Kyrenia Dome
Hotel and in Bellapais village. Many male Greek Cypriots were temporarily
sent as 'prisoners of war to places like Saray Prison and Pavlides Garage
in the Turkish part of Nicosia, later being transported to Turkey and detained
in prisons in Adana, Amasia and Atiama. It is notable that the great majority
of those shipped to Turkey were civilians of all ages between 17 and 70.11
Turkey has never provided complete lists of detainees and the fate of about
3,000 Greek Cypriots was unknown at the time of the first applications
to the Commission. Because evidence showed that numbers of these missing
persons had been in custody in Turkey the Commission was asked to investigate
whether they were still imprisoned there. Turkish defence: No answer was
given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings
once her jurisdictional objection was rejected. Commission's Verdict:
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'No one
shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment... (Article
3). Charge laid against Turkey: Turkish troops were responsible for wholesale
and repeated rapes of women of all ages from 12 to 71, sometimes to such
an extent that the victims suffered haemorrages or became mental wrecks.
In some areas, enforced prostitution was practised, all women and girls
of a village being collected and put into separate rooms in empty houses
where they were raped repeatedly. In certain cases members of the same
family were repeatedly raped, some of them in front of their own children.
In other cases women were brutally raped in public. Rapes were on many
occasions accompanied by brutalities such as violent biting of the victims
causing severe wounding, banging their heads on the floor and wringing
their throats almost to the point of suffocation. In some cases attempts
at rape were followed by the stabbing or killing of the victims. Victims
included pregnant and mentally retarded women.
Turkey's defence: No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted
the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection was rejected.
Commission's verdict:
'The evidence shows that rapes were committed by Turkish soldiers and at
least in two cases even by Turkish officers, and this not only in some
isolated cases of indiscipline. It has not been shown that the Turkish
authorities took adequate measures to prevent this happening or that they
generally took any disciplinary measures following such incidents. The
Commission therefore considers that the non-prevention of the said acts
is imputable to Turkey under the Convention.
The Commission, by 12 votes against one, finds that the incidents of rape
described in the above cases and regarded as established constitute Ôinhuman
treatmentÕ in the sense of Art. 3 of the Convention, which is imputable
toTurkey (Report, paras. 373-4).
Relevant Article of the European Convention of Human Rights: 'No one
shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment....
(Article 3). Charges laid against Turkey: Hundreds of persons, including
children, women and elderly people, were the victims of systematic torture
and savage and humiliating treatment during their detention by the Turkish
army. They were beaten, sometimes to the extent of being incapacitated.
Many were subjected to tortures such as whipping, breaking of their teeth,
knocking their heads on the wall, beating with electrified clubs, extinction
of cigarettes on their skin, jumping and stepping on their chests and hands,
pouring dirty liquids on them, piercing them with bayonets etc. Many of
these detainees were ill-treated to such an extent that they became mental
and physical wrecks. Among the persons so treated were those deported to
and imprisoned in Turkey (of whom most were civilians). During their transportation
and detention they were savagely illtreated, being wounded, beaten, kicked,
whipped, blindfolded, handfettered, punched to the extent of bleeding,
etc.
These brutalities reached their climax after the ceasefire agreements and
resolutions of the U.N.Security Council calling for an end to hostilities.
In fact most of these acts were committed when Turkish armed forces were
not engaged in any war activities. More than 1,000 statements obtained
from witnesses described their ill-treatment. Such statements showed a
pattern of behaviour by the Turkish forces, proving that the atrocities
were deliberate tactics which the invading forces were to follow. The aim
was to terrorise, destroy and eradicate the Greek population of the Turkish
occupied area so that it would be vacant to move in Turks, thus creating
an area populated virtually only by Turks. Turkey's defence: No answer
was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings
once her jurisdictional objection was rejected. Commission's verdict:
'The Commission by twelve votes against one, concludes that prisoners were
in a number of cases physically ill-treated by injuries and at least in
one case the death of the victim. By their severity they constitute "inhuman
treatment" and thus violations of Art. 3, for which Turkey is responsible
under the Convention. The Commission by twelve votes against one, concludes
that the withholding of an adequate supply of food and drinking water and
of adequate medical treatment from Greek Cypriot prisoners held at Adana
and detainees in the northern area of Cyprus, with the exception of Pavlides
Garage and Saray prison,12 again constitutes, in the cases considered as
established and in the conditions described, Ôinhuman treatment and thus
a violation of Art. 3, for which Turkey is responsible under the Convention
(Report, pp. 165-6).
'The evidence obtained established that, in a considerable number of cases
prisoners were severely beaten or otherwise physically ill-treated by Turkish
soldiers (Report, para. 393). The Commission, by twelve votes against one,
concludes that the written statements submitted by the applicant Government
constitute indications of ill-treatment by Turkish soldiers of persons
not in detention (Report, p. 166).
'Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions... (Article
1 of Protocol No. 1). Charge laid against Turkey: Greek Cypriots were deprived
of their possessions either by eviction or by seizure of movable property
and its subsequent removal by Turkish soldiers, or by conditions making
abandonment of home and property the only wise course as life and limb
were at risk from the Turkish army. When privately owned land and houses
belonging to Greek Cypriots in the Turkish occupied area came under Turkey's
control, most of this was distributed to Turkish Cypriots and to Turks
brought from Turkey to settle in those areas. To preclude any Greek Cypriots
from reclaiming their possessions, Turkish authorities forcibly prevented
their return and continued to expel most remaining Greek Cypriots. In various
official statements the Turkish Government made it clear that Turkey was
organising marketing of all agricultural production in the occupied area.
The same applied to tourism and Turkey took over all Greek Cypriot manufacturing
industry. Goods already manufactured and agricultural produce ready for
marketing were shipped abroad in Turkish vessels.
In addition, the Turkish Army systematically looted houses and business
premises belonging to Greek Cypriots. Even properties of those Greek Cypriots
who had remained in the Turkish occupied area did not escape this fate.
Most loot was loaded into Turkish army vehicles and buses seized from Greek
Cypriots and a substantial part, including vehicles, animals, household
goods, and building equipment, was transported by Turkish naval vessels
to the mainland.
The Turkish Army also engaged in wanton destruction. Turkish soldiers attempted
to burn down all buildings along 'the green line in Nicosia, and orchards
and crops belonging to Greek Cypriots were set on fire after cessation
of hostilities. Witnesses also described breaking of doors and windows
of houses, the smashing of furniture, icons, candles and other church property
and killing of animals. The destruction of Christian and Hellenic monuments
was a significant feature of Turkey's occupation. Religious property was
a particular target in an attempt to destroy the cultural identity of the
occupied area. Not only were religious items and church equipment smashed,
set on fire or looted, but most Greek Orthodox churches not converted into
mosques were vandalised. Mosaics and even frescos were either defaced or
removed. This occurred in military zones under control of the Turkish Army
and from which Turkish Cypriots were excluded.
Even archaeological museums and sites did not escape vandalisation and
initial looting. Turkey's defence: No answer was given to these charges
and Turkey boycotted the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional
objection was rejected. Commission's verdict: The Commission accepted that
the 170,000 Greek Cypriots displaced from the occupied area had left behind
their movable and immovable possessions and referred to 'the established
fact that these displaced person are not allowed to return to their homes
in the north, and thus to property left there (Report para. 471). The Commission
went on to find:
'proof of taking and occupation of houses and land by Turkish Cypriots
and Turks from the mainland, both military personnel and civilians (Report
para. 472). Moreover the Commission accepted testimony as proving beyond
reasonable doubt that looting and robbery on an extensive scale by Turkish
troops and Turkish Cypriots have taken place... As regards such deprivations
of possessions by Turkish Cypriots, the Commission considers that, insofar
as the persons committing them were acting under the direct order or authority
of the Turkish forces of which there is evidence, the deprivation must
equally be imputed to Turkey under the Convention... The Commission, by
12 votes against one, finds it established that there has been deprivation
of possessions of Greek Cypriots on a large scale, the exact extent of
which could not be determined. This deprivation must be imputed to Turkey
under the Convention and it has not been shown that any of these interferences
were necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1" (Report, paras. 472-486 passim).
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'The enjoyment
of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground such... as race,... language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with
a national minority... or other status (Article 14). Charge laid against
Turkey: The acts of the Turkish Army were exclusively directed against
the Greek Cypriot community with the object of destroying and eradicating
the Greek population of the Turkish occupied area so as to move therein
Turks, thereby artificially creating a Turkish populated area. All Turkey's
atrocities were directed against Greek Cypriots (though some foreign subjects
who happened to be or have property in the Turkish occupied area were also
effected by some such acts e.g. looting and wanton destruction of property).
Turkish defence: No answer was given to these charges and Turkey boycotted
the Commission's proceedings once her jurisdictional objection had been
rejected. Commission's Verdict:
'The Commission has found violations of a number of Articles of the Convention.
It notes that the acts violating the Convention were exclusively directed
against members of one of the two communities in Cyprus, namely the Greek
Cypriot community. The Commission concludes by eleven votes to three that
Turkey has thus failed to secure the rights and freedoms set forth in these
Articles without discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, race and
religion as required by Art. 14 of the Convention (Report, para. 503).
Relevant Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'Everyone
whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy.. (Article 13). Charge laid against Turkey:
None of the victims of the ruthless and evil deeds by Turkish State organs
and her Armed Forces was ever given any opportunity to vindicate his rights
before an authority or tribunal as provided by Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention. Persons under Turkish control were not even permitted to talk
without Turkish supervision to the International Red Cross. In short, no
effective remedy of any kind was afforded either in the Turkish occupied
area or in Turkey itself in respect of Turkish atrocities. Turkish defence:
In its jurisdictional objection, Turkey argued that remedies were available
before the competent judicial authorities in Turkey or before the military
courts of the Turkish forces in Cyprus.
Commission's findings: The Commission held that such remedies had not been
shown to be 'practicable and normally functioning. Nor had it been established
how such complaints could be effectively handled. (Admissibility Report,
at p. 22 of the Report). The Commission at the hearing on the merits reiterated
that it had found no evidence that effective and sufficient remedies were
available (Report, paras. 499-501) .
