Introduction

The main principle that the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus is based on is power-sharing between the two communities. According to this principle, the president of the Republic would be a Greek Cypriot, while the vice-president would be a Turkish Cypriot and they would be elected by the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus respectively. 30% of the members of the House of Representatives and of the Council of Ministers would be Turkish. The High Court of Justice would be composed of two Greek, one Turkish and one neutral judge. 30% of all civil servants, 40% of the police force and 40% of the army would be Turkish.

As it is clearly seen from the percentages, according to the Constitution, it was intended that the power in the Republic of Cyprus should be shared between the two communities. But since 1964, those regulations in the Constitution haven’t been exercised at all. Since that date, the Turkish Community has not been represented in any of these organs.

The negotiations for a settlement of the Cyprus problem started in 1968 between the leaders of the two communities but there was no solution until 1974. After 1974, the negotiations continued and in 1977 and 1979, two summit agreements were signed by the leaders. According to these agreements, the new settlement in Cyprus would be based on a bi-communal and bi-zonal solution and this new state would be a federation. But the leaders of the two communities couldn’t reach this aim and the status quo was preserved.

 Since 1974 the status quo in Cyprus is based on two states. Today, one of these states is the “Republic of Cyprus” where the Turkish Cypriots have no representation whatsoever in any organ in spite of the regulations in the Constitution and the other state is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The composition of the legislative, executive, judiciary and administrative organs of the “Republic of Cyprus” is completely unconstitutional. But this de facto state is recognized by the United Nations and other international organizations and it is a member of the European Union while the TRNC is recognized only by Turkey.

Until 2004, the propaganda line of the Greek Cypriot Administration was that the abnormal situation in Cyprus which forced the state to act unconstitutionally wasn’t their fault, so although this state was unconstitutional it had to be accepted as legitimate. But after the referenda in 2004 which were held to find a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, this so called legitimacy must also be discussed. 65% of the Turkish Cypriots said “yes” in the referendum while over 75% of the Greek Cypriots said “no”. So, now the Greek Cypriot Administration who encouraged the Greek Cypriots to reject the Annan Plan is an unconstitutional administration where the Turkish Cypriots aren’t represented at all although they strongly supported the comprehensive settlement. Even though the Greek Cypriot Administration was unconstitutional, it was accepted as legitimate because everyone thought that it was the Turkish Cypriots and their Leadership who don’t want a comprehensive settlement and who want to preserve the status quo in Cyprus. But after the referenda, it is now clear that it is the Greek Cypriots who said “no” to the Plan and it is their Leadership who doesn’t propose any alternative for a comprehensive settlement in line with the principles designated by the United Nations. It is also clear that the leaders of the Greek Cypriot Community called on their citizens to say “no” in the referendum. Under these circumstances, it can easily be argued that since April 2004 the administration in South Cyprus which isn’t showing any effort to prevent the exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots from the legislative, executive, judiciary and administrative organs is not only unconstitutional but also illegitimate.

Today, the Greek Cypriot Administration, by encouraging its citizens to reject the chance of a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus and by failing to propose an alternative to the Annan Plan in line with the principles designated by the United Nations is clearly the only side which is responsible for the abnormal situation on the island. So, since 2004, it is not possible to argue that the abnormal situation on the island can justify the unconstitutionality of the Greek Cypriot Administration.

The so called Republic of Cyprus today, based on the principle of complete exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots from the state organs is not only unconstitutional, but anti-democratic and illegitimate as well.

The island of Cyprus has been divided into two parts as north and south since 1963 and because of this division, Turkish Cypriot refugees who moved to the north and Greek Cypriot refugees who moved to the south had to leave their homes and other immovable properties. All these refugees certainly look forward to a comprehensive settlement which will give them the chance to either return to their old places or at least receive compensation instead.

The Annan Plan was a chance for a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus but after the simultaneous referenda on the 24th of April 2004, although 65 % of the Turkish Cypriots said “yes”, it was rejected by the Greek Cypriots.

After the referenda, the Greek Cypriot leaders who encouraged their citizens to say “no” in the referendum in South Cyprus had to find some other ways to show their citizens that to reject the Annan Plan had brought them to a more powerful position especially in the property issue.

The alternative way found was to bring suits against Turkish Cypriots and foreigner individuals living in North Cyprus and using old Greek Cypriot properties. One of the most popular cases of this sort was the “Hurma” case. This case was about the old property of a Greek Cypriot situated in the north which was used as a restaurant by a Turkish Cypriot citizen. Although the immovable property was situated in North Cyprus, the suit was brought to the courts of the Greek Cypriot Administration in the South.

The Greek Cypriot Administration is a member of the European Union representing the whole island and the constitution which is said to be in force in the south is the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. According to article 159 sub section 3, “where in a civil case the plaintiff and the defendant belong to different Communities the court shall be composed of such judges belonging to both Communities as the High Court shall determine”. But in the “Hurma” case, because there was only one judge who was a Greek Cypriot, the composition of the court was a clear breach of this article. Article 159 of the Constitution is a very important article because it not only regulates the composition of the courts in the Republic of Cyprus but it also formulates the basis of fair trial in this country. According to the main principles of the Constitution, without having two judges who belong to two different communities, a fair trial will be impossible in civil cases where the plaintiff is a Greek Cypriot and the defendant is a Turkish Cypriot.

The justification of the Greek Cypriot Administration for this unconstitutionality is the “extra ordinary” conditions in Cyprus. According to the Administration, because of the extra ordinary conditions in Cyprus it is impossible to employ Turkish Cypriot judges in the courts. But it must be stressed that these conditions that “force” the Administration to act unconstitutionally are just the same for the Turkish Cypriots who said “yes” in the referendum for a comprehensive settlement and who continue to use old Greek Cypriot immovable properties after the referendum. It is completely lawful for a Turkish Cypriot to use old Greek Cypriot properties in the North just as it is lawful for a Greek Cypriot to use old Turkish Cypriot properties in the South. We must never forget that this is an outcome of the unsolved Cyprus problem and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can be held responsible for what has happened on the island.

But if the Greek Cypriot Administration is ready to try Turkish Cypriots in its courts then surely the same Administration must be ready to act in accordance with its own constitution and especially the principle of fair trial. We mustn’t forget that unfair and unconstitutional trial of the Turkish Cypriots is not only a breach of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus but is also a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights; and as a member of the European Union the Greek Cypriot Administration is under the obligation of applying the Convention in the areas under its effective control without any discrimination.

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the OSCE and ODIHR to make such a big organization where NGOs and Government representatives can come together and discuss how to better improve democracy and human rights all around Europe.

Before beginning my presentation, I would like to give you a little bit background information with regard to the identity of TCHRF which I have the honor to represent today. TCHRF was established by a group of human rights activists who were amongst the leaders of mass rallies in favour of comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus conflict and thereafter the European Union membership of an expected United Republic. As Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly embraced the Annan Plan-prepared by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan with the hope that it woud have settled the long standing conflict-  it was unfortunately rejected by a resounding ‘NO’ vote of Greek Cypriots in 2004 Referendum. The TCHRF was established primarily to deal with the human rights problems of Turkish Cypriots who have been left outside the EU even though they have accepted the Plan which was highly welcomed and embraced by the International Society chiefly amongst them the EU, that would have reunited the island.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The issue of ‘Displaced persons’  continues to be the bleeding wound in the history of Cyprus today. Unlike the Greek Cypriot official propaganda which advocates that the so-called  Cyprus problem has started in 1974 with the invasion and occupation of Turkey which deprived Greek Cypriots of their homes and property; its roots lie in the 1950s when EOKA-Greek Cypriot paramilitary organization initiated an armed struggle against Turkish Cypriots with the aim of annexing Cyprus with Greece. Confronted by the Turkish Cypriot resistance afterwards, the conflict seemed to have come to an end with the establishment of Republic of Cyprus of which both Turkish and Greek Cypriots are the co-founders. However, 3 years after the establishment, as a result of the rejection by the Turkish Cypriots of the 13 amendments issued by the Greek Cypriot President of then Republic of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios, inter-communal conflict broke out. Turkish Cypriots have been displaced their homes and forced to live in ghettos, tents until 1974. As Turkey, one of the guarantors of RoC, militarily intervened to restore the Constitutional order and preserve the territorial intergrity of RoC, several Greek Cypriots have also been displaced from their homes and properties.

Ladies and gentlemen,

My purpose in taking you back to the recent history of Cyprus was not to try to teach you the political history of Cyprus of course. But instead, I wanted to emphasize that there has not only been Greek Cypriot displaced persons in the past of Cyprus, but there have also been Turkish Cypriots too who have been displaced from their properties even before the Greek Cypriots. And unless this reality is understood, the problem of displaced persons will continue to be the bleeding wound for the generations to come.

Thank you very much for the opportunity provided here and for listening to me.