POLICE have launched criminal investigations into the murders of Greek and Turkish Cypriots dating from 1963 and 1974, it was reported in Politis yesterday.
According to the paper, both the Cyprus Republic and Turkey have opened criminal files regarding the murders of people who until recently were considered missing. The reason believed to be behind the belated response to the crimes is the fact that relatives of the missing have taken a number of cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Politis writes that a large number of families who have recently had the remains of their loved ones identified and returned by the Committee on Missing Persons (CMP) have sought recourse to the ECHR for the failure of either Cyprus or Turkey to carry out a full and proper investigation into the fate of those who went missing.
While the CMP has helped close a dark and painful chapter for many of the relatives of the missing, its mandate has never been to investigate or reach conclusions on the circumstances in which people were killed or who was responsible, an obligation usually associated with the law enforcement agencies of a state.
In total, over 30 Greek Cypriot families and 17 Turkish Cypriot families of the missing who’ve recently been identified have sought recourse to the ECHR. These include Charita Mandoles who was an eye-witness to the execution of Greek Cypriots in 1974, Turkish Cypriot relatives of victims of the Tochni and Maratha massacres that same year, as well as those Turkish Cypriots who were kidnapped and killed in 1963.
The paper cites sources saying that Turkish Cypriot ‘police’, acting on Turkey’s initiative, began taking statements from Greek Cypriot relatives of the missing last week regarding the circumstances of the victims’ disappearance.
In parallel, the Cyprus Republic police have reportedly opened investigations on a number of past cases. A police spokesman was unable to confirm these reports yesterday.
However, according to Politis, police are looking into the massacres of Turkish Cypriots at Tochni and Maratha in 1974 as well as other disappearances and murders committed during the intercommunal fighting in 1963.
Investigations have reportedly progressed to such an extent that police have already taken statements from Turkish Cypriot relatives of the victims of Tochni and Maratha and also called in for questioning those Greek Cypriots named as the culprits.
The fact that both Turkey and Cyprus are only now showing interest in the deaths of people, many of whom were shot in the head at close-range and thrown down wells or scattered in makeshift burial sites across the island can be explained by the development of the cases of the missing at the ECHR.
The Strasbourg-based court only accepts cases on the missing where the applicant has filed their application to the court within six months of new evidence being revealed. An example of new evidence in the case would be the finding and identification of the remains of a missing person.
Following the applications based on new evidence, the next step taken was for the ECHR to request answers from Turkey and Cyprus on the following questions, as published by Politis.
The court asked both countries whether they consider identification of remains as new evidence which raises the issue of whether a country is obliged to carry out an effective investigation regarding the circumstances of that person’s death. If so, have the two countries complied with this obligation? The court also asks whether the Turkish or Cypriot authorities have included any remedy towards the applicants under Article 3 of the Convention in their response to the identification of missing persons.
