- Advertisement -
by: Athan Tsimpedes, Esq., Washington DC // Introduction.
This article is to inform and alert the Greek Cypriots of the concealed dangers involved by applying to the Immovable Property Commission and its clandestine purpose and design. Although some cases and issues are presented, this article is not meant to be exhaustive but more of a general and pointed view as the subject covered cannot be explored and properly discussed in one article let alone a series that is intended to follow.
Summary.
- Advertisement -
In 2005, the renewed illegal proclamation of the “Immovable Property Commission” (“IPC”) by a TRNC “law” gave an illegitimate birth to a designed scheme to allegedly compensate and provide remedies to the barbarically expelled Greek Cypriots from their property for 36 years. The ECHR now requires Greek Cypriots to voluntarily submit an application for either the loss of use, selling or exchanging of their property through the TRNC authorities with the sovereign stamp of recognition by Turkey. However, the pseudo-state, under the business logo “TRNC” has illegally issued title and sold many properties belonging to forcibly expelled Greek Cypriots. The ECHR has also created rights to alleged “third parties” of undetermined citizenry to the detriment of Greek Cypriots by malicious design. This inherently unfair mechanism of “justice” cannot provide compensation fairly and even if it could, its concealed purposes to recognize both the TRNC1 and Turkey as sovereigns in the illegally occupied territories of Cyprus is of the utmost importance that must be exposed and defeated. People should know there are legal avenues that promote fundamental fairness and universal laws respecting the rights of Greek Cypriot property owners that do not expose them and the ROC to danger. The EU case Apostolidis and the U.S. case the Church of Cyprus provided such forums with safeguards with the utmost importance of protecting the sovereignty of the ROC, unlike the IPC.
Background.
The TRNC is not a country recognized by the international community with the exception of one country, Turkey. The TRNC does not have a valid or transparent constitution or a body of law to guarantee the impartiality of the tribunal by applying international standards for fairness. Besides, its own website states that it was created to establish “claims relating to abandoned properties in Northern Cyprus.” That is a lie and even non-Cypriots and non-Greeks recognize. For example, in the famous United States (“U.S.”) court case of the Kanakaria Mosaics, Judge Noland explained why Greek
- Advertisement -
((1
Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States sets out four main characteristics,
but with exceptions (such as the use of force, Article 11 of the Convention) to each:
“(a) permanent population;
(b) defined territory;
(c) government;
and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with other States.))
Cypriots had to abandon their properties: “After the 1974 invasion, the Greek Cypriot population … was ‘enclaved’ by Turkish military forces. During this time the Greek Cypriots were denied many basic human rights, including freedom of movement, medical care, and the ability to earn a living. Many men from the village were arrested and detained in Turkish jails; there they received severe beatings by Turkish soldiers.”
Further, like many other Greek Cypriots he described one Greek Cypriot’s plight under this regime: “In July 1976, the pastor of the Kanakaria Church, Father Christopher, was forced to flee to non-occupied southern Cyprus for fear of his life.” (Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 1374 ( Ind. 1989). If Turkey and Turkish Cypriots did not respect a priest, for certain they could care less about the laity.
The IPC was created and orchestrated by the same illegitimate and barbaric forces, pretending to be an impartial tribunal providing compensation for alleged “abandoned” property belonging to Greek Cypriots while its ulterior motive remains latently concealed. Presently, the “IPC” is cloaked with the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) through its infamous ruling in Demopoulos2. With an overwhelming stench of political favor, the ECHR has now released the IPC towards Greek Cypriots and cloaked it with legal authority albeit illegal itself. The IPC is an instrument of Turkey, attempting like a Trojan horse to undermine the rule of law and seize the rights of Greek Cypriots by deception. The IPC seeks to legitimize the illegal forced expulsion of 200,000 Greek Cypriots because of their ethnic origin and the implantation of hundreds of thousands of settlers from mainland Turkey (constituting both as war crimes and crimes against humanity), while diluting and usurping the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus (“ROC”). The IPC also seeks to legitimize the illegal occupation of the northern part of the ROC and the massive illegal expropriation of the Greek Cypriot properties carried out by the TRNC acting as an international money laundering operation with the assistance of the HSBC banking system.
As the “poisoned fruits” from the supreme crime of aggression from the 1974 barbaric Turkish invasion, the “establishment” and “operation” of illegal “institutions” including the TRNC and IPC, seeks its toxic effects to taint the rule of law, the rights of Greek Cypriots and the sovereignty of the ROC. Unfortunately, any Greek Cypriot, despite his/her intention, who submits to the jurisdiction of Turkey through the IPC, voluntarily submits to the process of legitimizing not only the illegal pseudo-state and its laws but also the illegalities and atrocities of Turkey from the invasion of 1974 to the present day.
The ECHR Recognition of the Turkish Trojan Horse.
The TRNC was illegally crafted in 1983 but was condemned universally by the world (UN Resolution 541) except for Turkey. Turkey and its pseudo regime enjoy a master servant relationship designed to assist with Turkey’s illegal objectives towards the ROC.
The TRNC is an illegal commercial enterprise exploiting properties belonging to Greek Cypriots, to the church, to the local authorities and to the ROC attempting to permeate the ethnic cleansing initiated by its master during the brutal invasion of 1974. Apart from
((2 See Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey, (ECHR Application nos. 46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02,
13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04, 21819/04) ))
castrating the universal right for refugees to return to their homes protected by UN resolutions, the gravest action towards Greek Cypriot human rights was the ECHR’s recognition of the IPC by law 67/2005 of the TRNC Constitution cloaking it with legal legitimacy as an “effective” domestic remedy for compensation towards Greek Cypriots.
The pretext of the IPC is that it seeks to compensate Greek Cypriots who (according to the Turkish propaganda) “abandoned” there homes and lands (as if it were their wish or desire to do so) to voluntarily submit an application for either the loss of use, selling or exchanging of their property via the IPC through the TRNC authorities. However, the pseudo-state has illegally issued title and sold many properties belonging to forcibly expelled Greek Cypriots that also includes properties belonging to local municipalities, the ROC government and the church3, disregarding and discriminating against the very rights and people it now pretends to protect and respect, let alone “fairly” compensate.
The ECHR imputed the IPC to Turkey and Turkey wolfishly accepted this legal gift as it comes closer to achieving its central initial illegal purpose: to be a recognized sovereign along with its puppet pseudo-state in the occupied territories of the ROC. The concealed purpose to validate the illegalities that have occurred is best understood through the IPC process and its designed lack of transparency. The IPC applies the laws and rules of the pseudo-state, including controlling and directing the appellate rights of any Greek Cypriot application requiring further recognition (sovereignty) and submission to the “High Administrative Court of the TRNC”.
Greek Cypriot Participation Will Recognize the Sovereignty of Turkey and its Puppet Regime.
Every time a Greek Cypriot voluntarily submits an application to the IPC (regardless of the ones who oppose it), the pseudo-state comes one step closer to becoming a sovereign nation while at the same time condoning the illegal occupation of Turkey on the territory of the ROC. Turkey’s political claim of sovereignty in the Occupied Territories involves two methods both of which are dependent upon Greek Cypriot participation. One involves the direct acquisition of property from Greek Cypriots selling their property, the very same victims expelled from their homes now being acquired through compensation, that helps the argument by Turkey and its agents as recognized Sovereigns in the occupied territories. By selling their property voluntarily to Turkey or its agents, Greek Cypriots will negate any further argument of illegality and create Turkey as a proper landowner on Cyprus while cementing its existence with the hundreds of thousands of “third parties” in the occupied territories echoing Turkey’s illegitimate claim and allegiance to Turkey.
The other involves the recognition and submission to the TRNC authorities and Turkey via the IPC application process alone. Even if insufficient property is surrendered by the deceptively attracted and eagerly expected thousands of applications (if mainly claiming de minimis compensation for only the loss of use) to the IPC, a political (although always ((3 When referring to “church” it shall mean the ”Church of Cyprus” unless otherwise indicated.))
illegitimate) claim of sovereignty can still be founded with the argument: “Since the very same Greek Cypriot victims through their submissions of applications recognize the IPC, the TRNC and Turkey’s presence in the occupied territories of the ROC why shouldn’t the international community?”
This perversion of justice violates all the consistent and universal findings against Turkey and the rule of law that has been substituted with an inherent discriminatory and illegal process through the IPC designed to deceptively obtain legitimacy through the consent of the very same victims making them victims twice. Unfortunately, Greek Cypriots applying to the IPC are in effect aiding and abetting crime. Foremost, whenever any Greek Cypriot obtains compensation through the IPC, Turkey will be viewed as providing local and national remedies bolstering the illegal discriminatory ruling by the ECHR. This means Turkey will never be held responsible for its 1974 atrocities and justice will not be served. Beyond the injustice, there is no guarantee the de minimis compensation for the property will be “fair” or given at all. Just like Turkey’s feigned acceptance and protection for the rights of all refugees to return safely to their homes, it has created a “bait and switch” campaign with the help of a selected few promoting the compensation of the IPC. This IPC marketing scheme was developed to entice Greek Cypriots to file applications in mass numbers and in short order with its allure of a “quick pay out” before the good people of Cyprus can digest what has happened to them.
Negotiating under duress for one’s right cannot be considered fair or impartial but will be considered valid because the application to the IPC was “non obligatory” thanks to the ECHR ruling in Demopoulos that prospectively sets the trap for Greek Cypriots to apply for compensation while doing so provides the argument of sovereignty to Turkey. As for the compensation already granted to a few Greek Cypriot applicants, the IPC valuation was well below the fair market value. The IPC lacks the recognized safeguards of due process and constitutional protections provided for in Western Civilization. After the smoke screen created by the compensation paid to a few has cleared, the IPC can delay payments to the masses that submitted applications “under the influence” believing their compensation would swiftly follow only to awaken into an endless cycle of misery with all the protections not afforded under the oppressive government of Turkey.
The ECHR’s Illegal/Legal Gift to Turkey.
Without Greek Cypriot “participation”, Turkey by itself cannot establish a local remedy nor any quasi-judicial system on the occupied part of the ROC as it is illegally there and the ECHR for political reasons ignores that obvious fact. The conduct of Turkey with the aid of the ECHR violates the established international law doctrine “ex injuria jus non oritur” that prohibits the legitimization of situations which emerge from illegality, especially the violation of the use of force against the territorial integrity and the political independence of the ROC. Turkey committed the supreme crime of aggression against the ROC and its civilians and whatever follows from Turkey’s illegal conduct is illegal.
However, these illegal and ultra vires acts will be legitimized if Greek Cypriots submit to the IPC because they are asking for a remedy from the very forces that created the violations against them, thereby submitting and recognizing their power over their claims based on legal violations of their rights and property while disregarding the only known sovereign on the island the ROC. The IPC, the pseudo-state and Turkey’s presence will be legitimized from any Greek Cypriot who applies to the IPC. This is similar to an illegal act of a company towards its shareholders that is ratified at a later time by the very same shareholders making the act no longer illegal towards these shareholders. This is why Turkey and its servants are foaming at the mouth awaiting vast numbers of Greek Cypriots to submit applications to the IPC trap and to strengthen their illegitimate political claim of sovereignty on the illegally occupied territories of the ROC.
While bowing to Turkey, ECHR provided a political decision in Demopoulos and Other v. Turkey intentionally ignoring UN Resolutions 3212, 541, the ECJ case of Apostolides v. Orams, and the US case Church of Cyprus, et al v. Goldberg, et al., and its own mandate in the European Convention, Article 1. These universally recognized findings and laws have been consistently upheld until the illegal and ultra vires act of the ECHR in Demopoulos. Despite having the most complaints on file and findings against Turkey for substantial violations of Human Rights, the ECHR rewards Turkey with a modern day Trojan horse disguised as the IPC to continue violating the rights of Greek Cypriots and the ROC in a designed clandestine manner to achieve its ulterior purpose, “recognized” sovereignty on the ROC. With every application to the IPC, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus continues but this time with the condonation and ratification of Greek Cypriots assisting in its legitimacy.
The ECHR Acted Illegally.
The ECHR through its mandate, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF), requires violations to be remedied pursuant to Article 13 (obligating member states to provide an effective national remedy) and Article 35 (exhaustion of domestic remedies). According to the world under universal legal principles, the ROC is the only recognized sovereign on the island nation of Cyprus4.
Yet, Turkey is the only country not to recognize the ROC. Since the IPC is on ROC territory, the only effective local or national remedy can be from or with the consent of the ROC that has exclusive sovereignty over the entire island including the occupied territories to adjudicate matters including property rights (See Apostolidis and Church of Cyprus). The IPC on the territory of the “ROC” is without any legal authority or consent and does usurp the sovereignty of the ROC causing defacto, if not dejure, recognition by Greek Cypriots submitting to it.
These obvious contradictions and derelictions of law are not in line with upholding and protecting the “Rule of Law” flouted by the ECHR as part of its mandate to exist and cited in many of its rulings. No court in Europe including the ECHR may violate the laws it swears to protect namely the Convention without a remedy. The rule of law is to be applied equally and the quality of the law respected, yet the ECHR has decided to violate its own founding principles and turn the law upside down.
In 2010, the ECHR exercised its power by declaring the Constitutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be discriminatory and in violation of the CPHRFF for violating election ((4 UN Resolution 541, Apostolidis and Church of Cyprus.)) rights of one ethnic group because of restrictions in participating in elections based on religious and ethnic requirements (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina). Yet, this same power or respect of the rule of law cannot be seen to be applied towards the good people of Cyprus. There is no doubt that Turkey acted illegally and feigned its representation to the world advocating that all refugees had the right to return safely to their homes when it signed UN Resolution 3212. However, the court in Demopoulos does not even consider the admission of Turkey or the universal laws protecting the rights of Greek Cypriots when it disregarded those rights and illegally “gifted” a mechanism, the IPC, for Turkey to obtain sovereignty in the ROC that requires unsuspecting Greek
Cypriots to participate.
Without even a single dissenting opinion on the Demopoulos court, it intended to conceal its intent to change the landscape of the ROC and rights of the Greek Cypriots forever. The perverted court ruling in Demopoulos speaks volumes of the courts’ ethics and its ultra vires act that violated the EU Constitution, CPHRFF and the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees and property owners when it intentionally disregarded the rule of law affirmed in decades of previous consistent international rulings and universally recognized rights.
The court in Demopoulos now attempts to castrate Greek Cypriot refugees’ rights to restitution that have been protected for 36 years for the sole purpose to benefit Turkey and “third parties” that includes hundreds of thousands of imported Turkish settlers (a designed produce of Turkey’s harvested crimes of 1974 against the ROC and Greek Cypriots).
Judges are not above the law to abrogate the legal ownership rights universally recognized belonging to one EU ethnic group (the Greek Cypriots) and “transplant” them to another EU ethnic group (Turkish Cypriots and others) who are illegal “third parties” “possessors/users” of the Greek Cypriot properties. Yet, this is exactly the result of the Court in Demopoulos. The court further degrades the rule of law when it abrogated the legal ownership rights from one EU ethnic group (the Greek Cypriots) to only transplant them to illegally implanted settlers from Turkey (non EU citizens) who were by design imported to illegally occupy the property of Greek Cypriots. These implanted settlers, like the TC’s, are also illegal third party5 “possessors/users” of the Greek Cypriot properties. These illegal “possessor/users” are complicit with one of Turkey’s main initial illegal objectives to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories of the ROC, and who are in effect “co-conspirators” with Turkey in violating the rights of Greek Cypriots and the ROC.
These discriminatory rulings violate the EU Constitution and its own Convention for which the court in Demopoulos apparently has no regard for and rationalizes their suspension towards Greek Cypriots as sound legal reasoning. Despite its limp attempt to ((5 The term “third party “and illegal “possessors/users” used herein shall be interchangeable
and includes Turkish Cypriots and implanted Turkish settlers from mainland Turkey poured
into the occupied territories illegally occupying the property belonging to expelled Greek
Cypriots, the church, local authorities and the ROC.))
circumvent their true “intent” by including language of “non obligatory” references towards the IPC it is not without review. The illegal ruling of the ECHR in Demopoulos was not a negligent abuse of discretion but an intentional deviation of the rule of law and authority, an act of “ultra vires”, making the ruling illegal and “void ab nitio” (void). The fornicated ruling expose the court and Judges in Demopoulos to the effects of violating the rule of law and for abusing the limits of authority granted them. The Demopoulos ruling no matter how harsh it seems against the individual rights of a Greek Cypriot will pale in comparison to the catastrophic effects on the sovereignty of the ROC by mass filings to the IPC.
The ECHR’s Attempt to Legitimize Turkey’s Co- Conspirators, The “Third Party” Illegal Occupiers of Greek Cypriot Property.
The ECHR has created a mechanism so that the rights of refugees to return to their homes are vitiated towards Greek Cypriots while benefiting and legitimizing the Turkish occupation and the universally condemned pseudo state TRNC. Despite the universally protected rights of Greek Cypriot property owners, the ECHR in an unprecedented act now recognizes “higher” rights belonging to co-conspirators namely the illegally implanted (hundreds of thousands of) settlers, Turkish Cypriots and others including the illegal “authorities” (meaning TRNC and the illegal Turkish Occupation Forces) who illegally “possess/use” Greek Cypriot properties in the illegally occupied territories of the ROC6. As stated herein, “third parties” are illegally benefitting and assisting Turkey in the denial of rights towards Greek Cypriots. These “third parties” have been on “notice”, actual or constructive, that they are trespassers of another’s home and not some migratory animal who lands upon a vacated “nest” to inhabit freely. By taking over a home or business that in many cases, if not all, contain some history of the Greek Cypriots that were forcibly evicted while fleeing for their lives with no choice but to leave behind treasured personalty; including icons, pictures, pets, books, valuables and furniture that places any “third party” or any reasonable soul inhabiting a property in the illegally occupied territories of the ROC on “notice” they are trespassing.
Yet, the court in Demopoulos abrogates the refugees’ rights to return to their homes universally protected for 36 years and recognizes rights to these mainly transplanted “third parties” that now also include foreign buyers of Greek Cypriot property illegally sold under the TRNC logo. The intended effect of the ECHR will legitimize the false titles and property illegally sold or “gifted” under the TRNC logo and to create rights for the implanted Turkish settlers and those Turkish Cypriots enjoying such illegal “fruits” to the detriment of the Greek Cypriot legal owners of the property, thereby giving legitimacy to the ethnic cleansing and Turkey’s occupation. These “third parties” in the illegally occupied territories cannot credibly argue they did not know the history of the property they now inhabit belonged to Greek Cypriots who were forcibly displaced.
Actual or constructive notice has taken place either through the overwhelming number of news articles documenting the invasion displacing Greek Cypriots or the UN Resolutions condemning Turkey for its conduct while protecting the rights of the refugees to return safely home acknowledged by Turkey (UN Resolution 3212).
((6 See Demopoulos, Par. 84, 112 and 116))
Third parties inhabiting the homes of Greek Cypriots do so under an illegal unrecognized sovereign, the TRNC, and therefore title is illegal7 and void or arrived illegally and occupied property of Greek Cypriots bypassing the laws and sovereignty of the ROC at the direction, comfort and benefit of the oppressor, Turkey to ethnically cleanse the area of Greek Cypriots8. The ECHR now has disregarded the universal laws protecting Greek Cypriot refugees and so Greek Cypriots must disregard the ECHR.
The discrimination towards Greek Cypriots has created an elite “golden” class on the island, the “Turkish Cypriot” (“TC”). Unlike the Greek Cypriot, the TC has blossomed with “benefits” and “entitlements”. In April 2003, the opening of a number of buffer zone road blocks along the cease fire line allowed roads connecting the free territories with the occupied territories of the ROC for the first time since 1974. On May 1, 2004, the ROC entered as a member of the EU. As of 2004, a TC obtains a ROC identification card, birth certificate and passport while also securing EU citizenship. Unlike a Greek Cypriot, this allows TCs to enjoy special privileges such as free health care (as of April 2003) in the free territories of the ROC without any form of tax imposition or any other obligation to the ROC. Unlike a Greek Cypriot, a TC can now work as an employee or conduct business (i.e., register and operate a company with employees) in the occupied or the free territories of the ROC.
As an extreme paradox to justice, not only do many TCs enjoy living in homes of expelled Greek Cypriots but they also enjoy special privileges (as mentioned above) at the expense of Greek Cypriot taxpayers, including those from the very same homes they were forcibly expelled. Further, as a rule, a TC can claim, whenever he/she chooses, restitution of his/her property in the free area of the ROC and of course he/she may live in the free area whenever and wherever he/she wishes, whilst, as a rule, a Greek Cypriot cannot claim restitution but can only claim for a limited time (until the fixed deadline of December 21, 2011) only the de minimis “compensation” for his/her property in the occupied area. As a result of disparate treatment based on ethnic origin, the Greek Cypriot cannot possess, use or return to live in his/her property or anywhere else in the occupied territories9.
The Rule of Law and Human Rights Must Be Respected.
((7 With the rightful legal owners still maintaining rights of ownership (See Apostolidis and
Church of Cyprus).
8 Bydefinition anyone assisting in a crime or illegality and benefitting from it is a
co-‐ conspirator and agent of Turkey.
9 As a result of the massive expulsions that took place mainly in the period between 1974-‐75,
there remain only a few hundred enclaved Greek Cypriots today in the occupied
territories that have been denied many rights, including the most recent disruption of a
Christmas service (December 25, 2010) that is indicative of the hatred and discrimination
towards Greek Cypriots and their religion by the same forces seeking to compensate
Greek Cypriots before the IPC.))
The world has seen enough atrocities that brought about the universal recognition of human rights that have been recognized applying to the forcibly expelled Greek Cypriot property owners in UN Resolutions and court decisions, such as the ECJ case Apostolides v. Orams, and Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg in the USA. Before the world, Turkey feigned its respect for human rights as it agreed that all refugees had the right to return to their homes safely yet, failed to uphold its word10. These human rights decisions against Turkey in support of Greek Cypriot refugees are nowhere to be found in Demopoulos as if purposefully omitted or politically driven.
As stated herein, the established international law doctrine “ex injuria jus non oritur” prohibits the legitimization of situations, such as the IPC, which emerge from the illegal Turkish invasion and use of force against the Greek Cypriot civilian population, territorial integrity and the political independence of the ROC. The laws of the ROC forbid anyone of its citizens from applying to the IPC. Therefore, the ECHR in Demopoulos has in effect advocated Greek Cypriots at least violate law, if not outright commit treason against the ROC, by submitting applications to the IPC that usurps the sovereign powers of the ROC. Without discussing the dangers of its ruling, the ECHR has in effect sanctioned the IPC to Greek Cypriots as a legitimate way of obtaining compensation against Turkey for the property rights violated over the past 36 years. A Greek Cypriot will not have the protection of the ROC, the EU nor the rule of law during the illegal IPC process. Once a Greek Cypriot agrees with the illegal regime by applying and submitting to it, he cannot then seek legal remedies anywhere else regardless of what happens.
The ECHR Mechanisms are Inherently Discriminatory and Unfair Towards Greek Cypriots.
Attorneys are officers of the courts and must protect the integrity and jurisdiction of the courts. For example, an attorney in the US is required not to offend the integrity of any court or tribunal of the United States and could not participate in any activity of the governmental functions of the TRNC, including any of its so called agencies or judiciary, as the TRNC is illegal, unrecognized and condemned by the US and the world. As an officer of the court, an attorney must protect the integrity and jurisdiction of the courts while pursuing justice that is violated with any advocacy towards the IPC let alone the inability to practice law before it. Many individuals on Cyprus and elsewhere have raised the question how an attorney from the ROC, UK or elsewhere except (Turkey or the TRNC) advocate the violation of law with an application to an illegal regime for the “purpose” of fair compensation for which question I can not produce an answer. Seeking fair compensation from an illegal regime is an oxymoron. At least in the U.S., an attorney providing advice to proceed with an illegal regime to his/her client would be considered illegal and unethical. This is especially true if the attorney seeks to profit from such nefarious advice and is likely a major reason why no other attorneys are involved in the IPC except TC attorneys. Above all, it would be illegal for any attorney to profit from the illegality itself.
((10 See footnote 3.))
With its inherent flaws, it should come as no surprise to Greek Cypriots of the biased IPC members who protect its “integrity” by rendering decisions and award compensation to Greek Cypriots. The IPC is allegedly composed of five to seven members, all Turkish or TC with two that are currently allegedly “foreign” members, Mr. Hans-Christian Krüger (former Secretary to the European Commission of Human rights and former Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe) and Mr. Daniel Tarschys (former Secretary General of the Council of Europe). The ECHR and the Council of Europe (and its agents) are politically influenced and driven. These forces are now bedfellows of illegality with Turkey, who decide the “fair and unbiased” restitution, exchange of properties or payment of compensation to a Greek Cypriot. Adding to the lack of safeguards and transparency, the right of appeal for a Greek Cypriot from the IPC is made to the “TRNC High Administrative Court”. The lack of transparency into the mechanisms of the TRNC11 is one of the most telling signs to stay away, yet for the lure of money some are venturing and payments of hubris made by Turkey to entice further Greek Cypriot participation towards the IPC clandestinely designed to assist in politically validating its illegal existence on the territories of the ROC.
The weight of the evidence necessary to validate a claim for compensation before the IPC is the standard known as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In the U.S. the burden of proof in civil cases for property is “beyond the preponderance of the evidence” or in mathematical terms 51%. In practical terms you can view it as “more likely than not”. In the US, the TRNC has no credibility before the US courts as it has been condemned and found to be a liar, issued false titles and sold property belonging to Greek Cypriots. It is currently being sued and investigated for falsely portraying itself as a government while operating in the US as an illegal commercial enterprise that sells property belonging to Greek Cypriots. Is it a coincidence that the IPC is now seeking to purchase property belonging to Greek Cypriots when the TRNC is selling or has sold the very same properties it now seeks to purchase from the legal owners, Greek Cypriots? Doesn’t this point to an obvious Achilles heel while at the same time expose a massive cover up that is not coincidental!
The Discriminatory Progeny of Demopoulos.
If time is any indication of fairness or whether a human rights violation in itself12, one need only look to the 20 year old ECHR case of Rodothea Karaviotou, acting on behalf Antonakis Solomonides who died waiting for his case to be decided13. These delays in the ECHR are not negligent but designed to “bury” the rights of Greek Cypriots to allow Turkey to advance its illegitimate goals. According to sources, in 1999 the ECHR was backlogged with 60,000 cases and by 2010 it had exceeded 120,000 cases and growing
((11 The IPC is derived from the TRNC constitution, law 67/2005.
12 Article 6(1) of the ECHR providesthat “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The ECHR has held that this requirement “underlines the importance of rendering justice without delays which might
jeopardize its effectiveness and credibility.” See H v France, (1989, Series A no. 162) Par. 58.
13 See Antonakis Solomonides v. Turkey, Application no. 16161/90.))
rapidly. Sadly, the Greek Cypriots who had filed applications with ECHR waiting in line for many years and are now faced with an even a more grim proposition. After waiting in line at the ECHR (many already for years), these Greek Cypriots (and anyone seeking the ECHR remedies) are now required “non obligatory” to submit to undetermined ordeal through the IPC then TRNC appellate procedures before waiting on the line yet again at the ECHR but this time further back as Greek Cypriots were even blamed (indirectly but clearly) by the ECHR for not surrendering their collective and individual rights, including their ownership rights in a political solution14.
What protections are actually afforded the Greek Cypriot during the IPC process is anyone’s guess and one that really does not need a discussion. Greek Cypriots were hated and were savagely beaten and killed because of their ethnic origin by the very forces providing compensation. As of January 5, 2011, 846 applications have been lodged with the Commission and 138 of them have been concluded through friendly settlements and only four through standard hearings15. This red flag is no different than the one shining brightly on the occupied Pentadactylos (5 finger) mountain, informing you of the intent with a clear message but yet the ECHR would like Greek Cypriots to accept Turkey’s disguised “gift” of friendship that comes in the form of the IPC that endangers the rights of Greek Cypriots and the ROC.
In Solomonides, the ECHR agreed that the IPC method of calculating compensation provides an effective domestic remedy for claims relating to alleged “abandoned” properties in the occupied territories for Greek Cypriots. The wording is so carefully selected as to not raise the issue of the illegality as if written by Turkey herself. The IPC ruled that Mr. Solomonides the owner of the property “was denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of his properties” and provided an offer to pay 2.18 million euros as compensation that was appealed to the ECHR for being undervalued and unfair. In a clear message and warning to Greek Cypriots, the ECHR further reduced the biased IPC
offered amount from 2.18 million to 1.4 million euros. The ECHR confirmed its political bias in favor of Turkey with its method of calculation that emphasized low awards as valid compensation towards Greek Cypriot property. Mr. Solomonides had requested 23 million euros to compensate for the loss of use of his properties consisting of 343,295 square meters in Hellenic towns, that have now been Turkified with names of Girne, Mağusa, Güzelyurt and Lefkoşa. In Solomonides, the property in question had a market value of 600,000 euros in 1974. Basically, the ECHR doubled the property value of 1974 and called it “fair” compensation while ignoring the IPC offer (2.18 million euros) or the 23 million euros claimed by Mr. Solomonides.
Conclusion
Turkey has unduly influenced the ECHR to make one of the most perverted ruling’s in the history of humanity that makes international law (i.e., the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CPHRFF and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) irrelevant and even destroys a minor child’s right to return
home16. Yet, there are irrational movements towards the IPC with the “take what you can now or get nothing” mentality. This is a foreign philosophy used to get those desperate to take action for one’s immediate monetary satisfaction to the detriment of many.
The ancient Greeks always sought and protected “Dikaion” at all costs and has lasted the ages to this day. It exists in Cyprus with its Hellenic roots that some now seek to legally cleanse from the island. The world’s position, although not taking action for punishing the ultimate crime of aggression and restoring legal order, has at least been consistent in condemning Turkey and the TRNC for their illegal conduct towards Greek Cypriots and the ROC. If allowed, the Demopoulos ruling will become to Greek Cypriots what Efialtes was to Greeks of Thermopylae. The simple question regarding the IPC remains: are the Greek Cypriots going to side with Turkey, the TRNC and the IPC or side with history and the world’s view that throughout time until today has admonished Turkey for its atrocities and conduct towards the ROC? Greek Cypriots also must be firm and consistent as “Dikaion” does not bow or submit to compensation or fear. In short, the ECHR ruling in Demopoulos is akin to requiring a rape victim to seek a remedy from her rapist. According to the ECHR, this is justice and the law for Greek Cypriots to follow. While a Greek Cypriot can choose to apply to the IPC and align with illegality, no one should ever participate with such an illegal enterprise. Even assuming
arguendo the IPC procedures were fair to the individual rights towards Greek Cypriots and even paid more than fair value, the fact remains every application to the IPC will allow the toxic effects from the supreme crime of Turkish aggression to be placed into the territorial body and political independence of the ROC while simultaneously deepening further the open wounds from the invasion of 1974. According to Socrates, there is nothing as precious as the Fatherland. «… μητρός τε καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων προγόνων ἁπάντων τιμιώτερόν ἐστιν πατρὶς καὶ σεμνότερον καὶ ἁγιώτερον καὶ ἐνμείζονι μοίρᾳ καὶ παρὰ θεοῖς καὶ παρ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς νοῦν ἔχουσι …» (Σωκράτης, δια γραφίδος Πλάτωνος: Κρίτων, 51, α-β).
For… if [the] Fatherland is gone all of the collective and individual rights simply cease to exist.
16
(Demopoulos Par. 136-137; Petrakidou v. Turkey (ECHR Application no. 16081/90)
(Ruling that a child who was 10 years or younger at the time of the forced expulsion had no right to return to her home).
- Advertisement -
