President Denktas - Interview on the Loizidou Case
QUESTION: With reference to the Loizidou case, Sir David [Hannay] has said that “The Cyprus problem will not be solved in court rooms, it will be solved at the negotiating table”.
DENKTAS: He is right. But he should have also told the Greek Cypriot leadership the old English saying that 'you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time'. We have wasted our time at the negotiating table by negotiating with people who are taking unilateral action, in courts where the Turkish Cypriots are not accepted as an interested party, in order to destroy the principles accepted as the parameters of the solution of the conflict. It will either be one-sided court decisions or State to State negotiations based on the parameters which will be decided by the two sides. The two do not go together.
QUESTION: Could you please explain your views and concerns over the Loizidou case.
DENKTAS: We need to explain this all the time. Everybody should know understand that bowing to such an unjust and one-sided decision is contributing to inequity, injustice and cruelty in this world. Internationally renowned lawyers who study the situation and know the realities in Cyprus, are amazed when they look into this case.
The European Court of Human Rights has not found the need to listen to the Turkish Cypriot side which, as has previously been decided by at the UN Security Council, is one of the two parties to the conflict. It has not taken into consideration the root causes of the 34 year old dispute and has started on the wrong foot by recognizing the illegal Greek Cypriot regime as the legitimate government on the island despite the fact that the Greek Cypriots have usurped the Turkish Cypriot partner's rights through force of arms, have shed blood to do so and have imported soldiers from Greece in order to squeeze the Turkish Cypriots into a mere 3% of the territory of the island.
The European Court of Human Rights has disregarded the existence of two democratic administrations in the island, the functioning of independent courts and respect for human rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as stressed in relevant reports of the US Human Rights Committee, and it has shown the irresponsibility to hold Turkey responsible for administrative issues within the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, contradicting, in the meantime, its previous rulings on similar issues. The decision is one-sided and, therefore, null and void. We cannot bow to such a decision and set a bad example to peoples who are struggling for their rights and liberties. We have to struggle against injustice;The Court's judgement is inapplicable and cannot be implemented, because there has been an exchange of populations in Cyprus in 1975 and bi-zonality has been approved.
Exchange of property has been a major principle among the basic parameters agreed upon. The Turkish Cypriot refugees have settled in Greek property in the North and Greek Cypriots have settled in the Turkish Cypriot property in the South. The two sides are separated by a cease-fire agreement. UN Security Council has ratified this as well and a buffer-zone has been established with the mutual agreement of the two sides. The buffer-zone has its own regime and is under the control of the UNFICYP. The maintenance of the status-quo, pending a settlement, is among the principles approved by the Security council. Crossing over to either side has been regulated by certain rules. Turkey has nothing to do with these arrangements;
The House of Lords, which is the highest court of appeals in the United Kingdom, alongside the European Court of Human Rights, has acknowledged the existence of an administration responsible for the organisation of daily life in Northern Cyprus. Hence, the unilateral and unlawful decision of the European Court of Human Rights is against the rule of law and contradicts the realities of Cyprus.
The judgement of the Court disregards our people's determination not to return to the South and amounts to the denial of our people's right to property abandoned in the South when they fled to the North, in order to live a decent life; therefore, we would like to believe that an esteemed organisation such as the European Council would appreciate that the only outcome of the acceptance of this baseless decision which totally disregards the political and legal facts in Cyprus, will be the further complication of an already complex issue and the encouragement of the intransigent attitude of the Greek Cypriot side. We are ready to inform and explain the realities about this and other subjects relating to Cyprus to all international organisations. It is obvious that decisions taken without due respect for the equal right of say of both parties to the conflict will be inapplicable and unbecoming of organisations like the European Court on Human Rights whose integrity ought to be above dispute.
|
