TURKISH Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash’s ‘property tribunal’ is a sham and an excuse to get Turkey off the hook at the European Court of Human Rights, former Attorney-general Alecos Markides said yesterday.
Commenting on an article by Denktash published yesterday in the Cyprus Mail, Markides said it was obvious the Turkish Cypriot leader was “once again” propagating his position on two states.
“The article is full of historical distortions in respect of the compromise agreements reached in 1977 and 1979,” Markides said, referring to what are known as the ‘high-level agreements’ that provided for a bizonal bi-communal federation in Cyprus.
“A bi-communal federation does not entail the exchange of properties or the deprivation of the freedom of the people of Cyprus to move and establish themselves wherever they like,” he said.
Markides also said the allegation that during the negotiations, the Greek Cypriot refused to deal with the issue of property was “utterly unrealistic and completely inaccurate”.
“We, as the Greek Cypriot side, were repeatedly in a position to demonstrate that modern international law cannot accept as valid … compulsory mass exchange of people’s property and of populations,” Markides said. He was a member of the negotiating team in the talks between Denktash and former President Glafcos Clerides.
“The UN and probably their legal advisers have fully accepted this position, and that is why the Annan plan began by placing down the principle that all owners of property titles, whether Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot, have retained their property rights, notwithstanding the events of 1964 or 1974 or of the declaration of or of the attempts to expropriate the properties of Greek of Cypriots.”
The Turkish Cypriot leader, who has rejected the Annan plan providing for the return home of thousands of Greek Cypriots, has been attempting to find alternative methods to resolve the core Cyprus issues, including the property dilemma, on his own terms rather than those of the complex UN plan.
He recently set up a property commission in the north where Greek Cypriots could go to settle their claims, saying there was a necessity for rearranging property claims “justly and fairly in view of the new political set-up”.
He said that to insist that restitution is the only way of solving this problem is an invitation to future conflict.
“The recent attempt by Mr Denktash’s regime to appear that it now respects the right of property, and the attempt to put in place some sort of a mechanism for owners to claim their rights, is nothing but a sham because it is based on the wrong premise, namely that the expropriation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied part of Cyprus was valid and resulted in the transfer of ownership from the rightful owners to the so-called ‘TRNC’, which gave titles to those properties to Turkish Cypriots and other persons,” Markides said.
Denktash has also tried to use the ‘tribunal’ as a lever at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), where hundreds of Greek Cypriots have brought claims against Turkey over denial of access to their properties.
“The main purpose is to relieve Turkey for a period of 4-5 years from the constant pressure from the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe by persuading the Court to throw out the cases on the grounds that the applicants should first have exhausted internal remedies which are considered to be internal remedies of Turkey,” said Markides.
“But there are strong arguments why this attempt should not be considered as valid. The so-called remedy given is not an effective one, and of course it is illegal and in flagrant contravention of international law.”
Earlier this week opposition party DISY tabled a bill in the House of Representatives making it a criminal offence for any Greek Cypriot to apply to Denktash’s ‘tribunal’, but Markides said this move was short-sighted and could damage cases currently before the ECHR.
“I consider this move to be a political blunder,” he said. “Any move by our side which may undermine our position or strengthen Turkey’s position is politically wrong.”
He said if such a law was passed the Cyprus government would have to go to the ECHR “and explain that the reason why people are not in a position to exercise their property rights is not Turkey, but the criminal law of the Republic of Cyprus,” Markides said.
