TURKEY yesterday finally handed over the 1.2 million euros owed to Titina Loizidou as compensation for the violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property in occupied Kyrenia.
Turkey has been fighting the decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to pay compensation for five years, but made an apparent turnaround yesterday when a political decision was made in the Council of Europe to postpone the implementation of an earlier Court judgment in 1996 on the restoration of Loizidou’s rights to her property until the end of 2005.
In an impromptu meeting yesterday, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers welcomed Turkey’s fulfilment of her obligations regarding compensation, but in a second resolution voted in favour of postponing debate on Loizidou’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her property until the end of 2005.
Loizidou and her lawyer, Achilleas Demetriades, hailed the decision as a very important beginning. Acting government spokesman Marios Karoyan expressed the government’s satisfaction with the payment of compensation, but voiced disapproval “because Turkey … managed to impose political elements in the resolution”.
He said Cyprus, Greece and Russia voted against the resolutions.
Loizidou and Demetriades first opened the chapter of human rights violations in the occupied north as a result of the 1974 invasion in 1989. Fourteen years later, they feel vindicated in part.
“This is a historic day because by paying the damages Turkey accepts the judgment of the Court, which means that Turkey accepts it is responsible in terms of human rights for what is going on in the occupied areas. It also understands that the ‘TRNC’ is nothing more than a subordinate, a local administration,” Demetriades told the Cyprus Mail.
“But most important of all, the acceptance of the judgment signifies the confirmation of Turkey that the legal titles of Cypriots who have property in the occupied north remain valid and therefore these people can now assert their rights and claim what they want in relation to that.”
The lawyer said the next step now was for Turkey to face the matter of restoration of Loizidou’s rights, which basically means the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
But he noted that “Turkey’s acceptance and partial enforcement of the Court’s judgments brings Turkey closer to Europe and shows they are beginning to understand the public order of Europe as that is expressed through the norms of human rights”.
Demetriades dismissed the government’s consternation at the political machinations involved in the groundbreaking meeting yesterday.
“The government is the government, I don’t work for them. I know that 14 years ago this case started out of nothing, when people didn’t believe human rights were worth a penny. And now we’ve reached the point where not only have human rights been established but Mrs Loizidou has been vindicated and Turkey has bowed to political pressure to pay. I expect that in the future it will also comply with the notion of restoring her rights in relation to her property in occupied Kyrenia,” Demetriades said.
On the more thorny issue of restoring Loizidou’s rights to her property, Demetriades was optimistic. “We now go into phase two which is restoration,” he said. “This will obviously take time, but after 14 years patience is one of our virtues.”
Loizidou described yesterday’s payment as the beginning of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
“It is a pleasant development in that we have the beginning of implementation seven years after Turkey was found liable for preventing me from using my property peacefully in Kyrenia,” she said.
“The most important thing is that Turkey is taking responsibility for the first time for what has been done in Cyprus,” she added.
Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash labelled the ruling a “political decision”, saying it was used to apply unacceptable pressure on Turkey.
According to Reuters news agency, a Turkish Foreign Ministry statement said payment was an indication of the Turkish government’s willingness to fulfil the common responsibility for preserving the credibility of the ECHR, although it added that the judgment in question was considered to be “unjust and erroneous”.
