The ECHR decisions do not address those questions directly simply because that's not the scope of ECHR.
Agreed, so why do you persist in dragging it back in ?
It's decisions however can well form the backbone of any hypothetical legal trial on whether the intervention had turned into nothing else than invasion/ethnic cleansing/unsurping of properties/colonisation and an overall violation of the Treaty of Guarantee on the first place.
Let's get this straight once and for all, because it doesn't affect the legality or otherwise of the intervention/invasion. The ECHR addresses human rights questions, the clue is in its title. It is not charged with addressing the legality or otherwise of intervention. So no, it's consideration couldn't form the 'backbone of any ...trial'.
Irrespective of whether the intervention was legally justified or not, citizens and states of signatories could bring cases before the ECHR. Thus, for example, the ECHR doesn't have to come to a conclusion that the intervention was illegal before it can conclude that, say, the actions of the Turkish administration of northern Cyprus resulted in human rights abuses. Ethnic cleasing is a human rights abuse and a case aganist the state alleged to have done the killing could be brought before the ECHR, but human rights abuses are a different action to international intervention and entail quite different kinds of law. Your confusion can be illustrated through an analogy : in English law divorce cases are dealt through the Family Division, but it could be that a partner has suffered a criminal injury in the lead up to the divorce plea and in that respect is an important part of the circumstances and reasons for divorce. But divorce is a civil matter dealt by the Family Courts and, physical violence is a criminal matter dealt with by the criminal courts. A judgement on one court, on the basis of one set of laws, does not automatically or necessarily determine the conduct and outcome of the other court.
I already said very clearly the Turkish Invasion started as an intervention and turned into an Invasion within 24 hours.
I, and millions of others would be interested in your distinction between an intervention and an invasion. What's your legal opinion about Iraq ? How, in legal terms, did '74 or '03 start as an intervention but then turn into an invasion ? You might look at Nicaragua v United States of America at the ICJ to appreciate how impossible this distinction, regretably, has proved to be.
the appearance of Turkey at ECHR was not obligatory unless she has first signed the relevant papers towards her EU road?
Wrong again, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or EU accession. Accession to the ECHR neither depends on EU membership nor EU candidacy nor any level of entry negotiation. Thus, for example, Armenia is a sigantory as is Iceland as is Ukraine, none of which are EU states or candidates. And when did Turkey sign the convention ? 1954 Hardly evidence 'signing the relevant papers towards her EU road' ! Interestingly Greece signed into the Convention after the fascist colonels had been booted out (Nov 1974) and RoC signed in 1962.
Would YOU ever accept to go at any court knowing you would be found GUILTY AS CHARGED?
Well if you put it like that, I'd think that that court was assuming my guilt before I'd had a chance to present my case. I'd say that I'd be suspecting you of inviting me to a show trial or a kangaroo court. And if I did turn up you can bet that I'd have an immediate submission before the ECHR on an Article 6 claim (right to a fair trial)
Anyway the question still stands, which courts and which cases ?
[/img]
