http://www.kibrisgazetesi.com/popup.php ... c_Haberler
In the ‘Son Durum’ (Latest Position) programme broadcast yesterday on KIBRIS television, a historic report written on 12 September 1974 by the Attorney General at the time, Oktay Feridun, and the President of the High Court, Necati Münir Ertegün was made public. After our General Broadcasting Director, Reşat Akar, had read key sections of the report, retired Attorney General and signatory to the report Oktay Feridun referred to the legal rules concerning freedom of property ownership and said that Turkish property in Egypt still belongs to Turks and, similarly, Turkish property in Lebanon belongs to Turks. Feridun explained that in writing the report he drew on books by world-famous jurists.
One of the other studio guests on the Son Durum programme, former minister and lawyer Hüseyin Celal said that the property question was part of the political settlement and could be solved by means either of compensation or exchange. Celal noted that Turkey, which lost 100 billion dollars in the banking crisis, could make a significant material contribution towards solving the property question
Turkish Refugees Association Chair, Enver Dinçoğlu, who participated in the programme, pointing out that property which was given to people who came from Turkey classified as agricultural labour and who were TRNC citizens was guaranteed by the TRNC, stated that the TRNC government would pay the appropriate compensation under a potential settlement.
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE HISTORIC REPORT
Key sections of the report prepared by the Attorney General at the time, Oktay Feridun, and the President of the High Court, Necati Münir Ertegün, in response to correspondence dated 5 September 1974 of Head of the Turkish Cypriot Autonomous Administration and Republic of Cyprus Vice-President Rauf Denktash are as follow:
*Immovable property belonging to Greek Cypriots in the area coming under Turkish control falls within the scope of the “Foreign Immovable Property Control (Temporary Provisions) Rule”.
*In places that have been occupied in a military intervention, family honour and rights, the lives of persons, private property as well as religious convictions and practice must be respected.
*Pillage must be officially forbidden.
*The side involved in the intervention may only take into its possession cash, funds, realisable securities that are strictly the property of the state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, in general such moveable property as may be used in war operations.
*Whether on land, at sea or in the air, communications devices, all equipment, depots of arms and all kinds of war munitions in general may be confiscated, even if they belong to private individuals. However, when peace is made, they must be restored and compensation must be fixed.
*Forces which occupy territory are merely the administrators of public state-owned buildings, public immovable property, forests and agricultural undertakings and only have usufructuary rights over them. This property must be preserved and must be managed in accordance with the relevant legislation concerning its use.
*The property of municipalities, and that of religious, charitable, educational, artistic or scientific institutions, even when state property, must be treated as private property. All seizure of or destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments and works of art or science is forbidden, and must be made the subject of legal proceedings.
*With reference to moveable and real property, it is stated on page 480 of Meray’s work under the heading “the situation with respect to private ownership” (making reference to Oppenheim)
"In countries whose territory has been occupied, the private real property legal regime cannot be altered. If these are seized and sold to other parties, this sale does not create a right in favour of the purchaser. In paragraph 2 of article 46 of the Hague Convention, it is clearly stated that private property may not be confiscated. At the same time, private real property of the occupied state may be used for the construction of hospitals, sheds and stables.”
*An army of occupation may confiscate war materials of all kinds, clothing, news broadcasting and communications equipment and vehicles, even if these are owned by legal persons in the country. When peace is made, these require to be restored or compensation requires to be made in respect of them. (Hague Convention article 53)
*On the other hand, the seizure or destruction of works of art or science is prohibited pursuant to article 56 of the convention. Article 47 of the convention forbids pillage. The taking of booty on battlefields is also limited. The right of booty, once very broadly defined, applies solely to weapons, horses, military documents and vehicles. Money and precious objects may only be taken on security grounds and for the purpose of storage.
*Real property in a country whose territory has been occupied cannot pass into the ownership of those who perform the military intervention. According to article 55 of the Hague Convention, they are merely the administrators of public buildings, public real property, forests and agricultural undertakings and only have usufructuary rights over them. In exercising this right, they are required to ensure that these are not destroyed. Occupying authorities may thus sell produce from state farms, operate mines, obtain timber from forests and rent out buildings. Unless absolutely necessary, they may not destroy fields and mines, demolish buildings and cut down entire forests.
PS, the 'Hague Convention' referred to is the 1907 Hague Convention, whose full text can be found here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument
