Cyprus-Forum.com

[runaway]

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yasam/SonDak ... =15&ver=21

For the first time on TV. I don't see see any difference from Srebrenica. oops there is one. GCs didn't have time to massacre all the TCs.

[boomerang]

[DT.]

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yasam/SonDakika.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=1097245&Date=21.05.2009&b=Rumlarin%20Kibristaki%20olum%20kampi&KategoriID=15&ver=21

For the first time on TV. I don't see see any difference from Srebrenica. oops there is one. GCs didn't have time to massacre all the TCs.

Take this one as well you cretin....women giving their testimonies about how they were raped by turkish soldiers...13 yrs old, 14 yrs old 70 yrs old.... Some would be shot after they were raped....some were raped in front of their husbands and their children....

[Jerry]

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yasam/SonDakika.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=1097245&Date=21.05.2009&b=Rumlarin%20Kibristaki%20olum%20kampi&KategoriID=15&ver=21

For the first time on TV. I don't see see any difference from Srebrenica. oops there is one. GCs didn't have time to massacre all the TCs.

Reminds me of images of what happened to Armenians 50 years earlier, and we all know how many of them were massacred. A pretty pointless post Runtaway.

[runaway]

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yasam/SonDakika.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=1097245&Date=21.05.2009&b=Rumlarin%20Kibristaki%20olum%20kampi&KategoriID=15&ver=21

For the first time on TV. I don't see see any difference from Srebrenica. oops there is one. GCs didn't have time to massacre all the TCs.

Reminds me of images of what happened to Armenians 50 years earlier, and we all know how many of them were massacred. A pretty pointless post Runtaway.

Of course it is pointless for you as gc s are caught "at work". We shall thank BBC for showing us facts against gc denial.

[Piratis]

I didn't know BBC was broadcasting in Turkish

And we never denied that we fought back after you attacked us and you started to kill Cypriots by the thousands, raping under age girls and ethnically cleansing people by the 100s of thousands.

In the war you started you also had some losses. About 200 or so people (compared to several 1000s from our side).

So, you start the war, you kill 1000s and then you come to blame us because in the war you started you also had a couple of 100s of casualties?

The same holds true for the inter-communal conflict which you started in 1958, and for your very first attack in 1571 and the several massacres against us until 1878. The Turks are always the ones who attack and start the killings, and then they present their comparatively tiny casualties in the wars they start against us as evidence for their innocence!!

Maybe the Nazis should do the same. The Germans lost 7 million people during WWII. Surely they should be the innocent ones (if we forget that they were the aggressors, and they are the ones who started the war by attacking others)

[runaway]

Those people in the camp are TCs not Turkish soldiers for God's sake and they were put there before military operation. It does not look as a fight back at all. They are ordinary Cypriot people and they are there just because of their ethnicity. Just like the missing bus victims. One day they go out for work and they end up dumped in a well.

[Get Real!]

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/Yasam/SonDakika.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=1097245&Date=21.05.2009&b=Rumlarin%20Kibristaki%20olum%20kampi&KategoriID=15&ver=21

For the first time on TV. I don't see see any difference from Srebrenica. oops there is one. GCs didn't have time to massacre all the TCs.

??? Didn't work for me mate...

[Kifeas]

Those people in the camp are TCs not Turkish soldiers for God's sake and they were put there before military operation. It does not look as a fight back at all. They are ordinary Cypriot people and they are there just because of their ethnicity. Just like the missing bus victims. One day they go out for work and they end up dumped in a well.

"Runaway," what had exactly happened in 1974 is adequately been documented -including by the UN itself in their reports while being present in Cyprus when the coup and both the two phases of the Turkish invasion took place; and we do not need assembled patches of "here and there" video clips to learn it from! It is well documented by both the UN and numerous media reports of the time that no TC was touched or affected during the coup, and it is only after the beginning of the Turkish invasion that TCs became targets of GC extremists.

Cyprus has taken Turkey to the ECtHRs in 4 different occasions -the last one being in 2001, in all of which Turkey was found guilty of numerous human rights violations. In none of all these 4 cases opened by the ECtHRs did Turkey made any claims or provided any evidence relating to the allegations that GCs were engaged in violating the TC’s human rights or their very physical existence, in order to validly justify why it did what it did in 1974. The end result was that Turkey lost all 4 bi-state "Cyprus vs. Turkey" cases opened at the ECtHRs. Furthermore, since the very early hours of Turkey's invasion in 1974, we have a considerable number of UN SC resolutions calling upon Turkey to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus and to withdraw its troops from its soil. Turkey has never convincingly claimed -set aside managed to prove the truthfulness of its claims, neither the legitimacy of its occupation and the presence of its troops in Cyprus.

If the little assembled story you are trying to sell us with your patch up video clip has any credible basis against any or all of the above, then I can assure you Turkey would have at least tried to make use of them when her case was examined by both the UN, the CoE and the ECtHRs. Instead, we only have condemnations and rulings against Turkey by the above international and independed organs.

[polis]

Here's what the European Commission of Human Rights had to say about the conditinos of the detention of Greek Cypriot civilians that were set up by the Turkish army in the Occupied Areas from (http://www.cyprus-dispute.org/materials/echr/page10.html):


B. "Detention centres"

I. Submissions of the Parties

(1) Applicant Government

237. The applicant Government submitted that in the north of Cyprus the Turkish armed forces detained thousands of persons arbitrarily and with no lawful authority [325]; they stated that this detention occurred essentially in certain "concentration camps", the worst of which were Voni, Marathovouno, Vitsada and Gypsou [326].

238. The Government first alleged that, on entering any inhabited area, the Turkish forces at once arrested the Greek Cypriot inhabitants and detained them because they were Greeks: the same course was followed in respect of any Greek Cypriot met on the way of the invading army [327].

According to the Government, those who were not detained as prisoners-of-war [328]; i.e. women, children and old men, were put in "concentration camps", if they were not expelled [329]. In those camps hundreds of persons from small babies to old people of 90 were kept in small spaces under bad conditions without sanitary facilities [330] and were not allowed to move out. Detainees were often moved from one concentration area to another and regrouped [331].

239. The applicant Government also complained of the detention by the Turkish authorities of some 3,000 inhabitants of the Kyrenia district in the Kyrenia Dome Hotel and in Bellapais village. They stated that most of these persons were arrested in their houses by the Turkish army and transported to the said places of detention. The rest were forced during the first days of the invasion to take refuge there. In November 1974 the Turkish military authorities continued to detain about 450 of those persons at the Dome Hotel and 1,000 at Bellapais. The detainees were not allowed to move from their places of detention to their nearby houses [332].

240. In their second application the applicant Government submitted that additional concentration camps had been established for the purpose of the detention of Greek Cypriot civilians in the north of Cyprus [333].

They distinguished between the additional "concentration camp" at Morphou established after the filing of the first application, and other places of detention including:

- the Dome Hotel in Kyrenia - 53 detainee;

- Lapithos (Kyrenia) - about 150 detainees;

- Larnaca of Lapithos (Kyrenia) - about 30 detainees;

- Trikomo (Famagusta) - about 120 detainees;

- Kondemenos (Kyrenia) - about 8 detainees;

- Kalopsida (Famagusta) - about 10 detainees;

- Spathariko (Famagusta) - about 9 detainees [334].

It was further stated that the Morphou concentration camp was gradually evacuated so that there remained only about 30 detainees by March 1975, and only 12 by July 1975, and that the detainees in the last three of the detention places above were expelled to the Government controlled areas in the summer of 1975 [335].

(2) Respondent Government

241. The respondent Government who, for the reasons stated above [336], did not take part in the proceedings on the merits, have not made any statements with regard to the above allegations.

II. Relevant Articles of the Convention

242. The Commission considers that the above allegations concerning the concentration of Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus in certain detention centres raise issues under Art. 5 of the Convention [337]. The question whether the conditions of this confinement raise issues under Art. 3 of the Convention will be dealt with separately [338].

III. Evidence obtained

243. It appears from the evidence before the Commission that, besides a fraction of the Greek Cypriot population in the north of Cyprus who had been by-passed by the military events of 1974 and continued to live in their villages in the said territory as "enclaved persons", i.e. under a curfew and restrictions imposed upon their freedom of movement within that territory [339], there was a considerable number of Greek Cypriots, scattered over the area more directly affected by the Turkish military action, who were originally also "enclaved", but who were soon subjected to a status of strict confinement in certain locations.

244. The evidence shows that these locations included:

(a) larger detention centres in schools and churches, where several hundred persons were kept, in particular in the villages of Gypsou, Marathovouno, Vitsada, Voni and, somewhat later, Morphou [340];

(b) private houses, where smaller groups of persons were confined [341];

(c) the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia, where Greek Cypriots were originally under UN protective custody (a similar situation existed in the village of Bellapais) [342].

245. The persons kept in any of these locations were not included in the category of "prisoners or detainees" referred to in the intercommunal agreements and in UN documents. They were, however, repeatedly mentioned in these instruments as a separate group of persons, in particular in connection with arrangements for their transfer to the south of Cyprus [343].

246. The evidence concerning the character of confinement in each category of the above locations will be set out separately in the following paragraphs.

(a) Confinement to detention centres established in schools and churches

247. The Commission has already found that many Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus were moved from their places of residence to other places within the territory controlled by the Turkish army [344]. It has found that many civilians were either brought to, or ordered to gather at certain central assembly points in their respective villages, usually the school or the church [345]. While most of these assembly points appear to have, been of a temporary character [346], some became more permanent places of detention to which also Greek Cypriots from the surrounding villages were brought.

248. 0n the basis of the material before it the Commission has not been able to establish en exhaustive list of these detention centres. It observes that the five villages Voni, Marathovouno, Vitsada, Gypsou and Morphou to which most of the evidence is related were usually cited by way of exemplification, presupposing that there were other places where similar conditions prevailed. Such other places, however, have not been identified and it was thus not possible to investigate the conditions of confinement existing there. The Commission must therefore limit its findings to the five centres mentioned above.

249. UN documents concerning these centres include:

- a report of the Secretary General of 18 September 1974 according to which "Greek Cypriots have been gathered into a number of centralised locations. The principal areas are at Gypsos (Famagusta district), 500, Marathovouno (Famagusta district), 400, and Voni (Nicosia district), 800 [347];

- a further report of 17 0ctober 1974 according to which UNHCR representatives, accompanied by Red Crescent officials, visited groups of Greek Cypriotsin the north, following which UNFICYP delivered blankets and food supplies to needy Greek Cypriots in Voni, Gypsou, Vitsada and Dhavlos [348]. The same report stated that the conditions of some 2,000 Greek Cypriots, mostly old people, living in central locations in areas under Turkish control gave cause for concern. These remarks did not include the 400 Greek Cypriots in the Morphou area and 2,500 Greek Cypriots still living in the villages in the Kyrenia area who were also reported to live in difficult conditions [349];

- a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of 30 October 1974, referring to Greek Cypriots in the northern area who had either been regrouped in churches, schools, hotels or other public buildings, or were isolated in their own villages, consisting almost exclusively of aged persons, invalids, women and children [350];

- a section of the progress report on the UN Operation in Cyprus during the period May-December 1974 summarising the arrangements for the transfer of persons kept in detention centres to the south of Cyprus. It read: "Some 2,500 Greek Cypriots have been living in poor conditions in the areas in the north where they have been concentrated, .... At the meeting_ between Mr Clerides and Mr Denktash in 11 November it was agreed that about 1,500 Greek Cypriots located at Voni (....) and Gypsou (....) would be evacuated to the south ...." [351];

- a section of the progress report on the UN Operation in Cyprus during the period December 1974 - June 1975 stating that 250 Greek Cypriots were concentrated in Morphou from surrounding villages, of whom all but 21 were evacuated to the south [352].

250. Statements made in an intercommunal meeting on 7 February 1975 by representatives of ICRC and UNHCR, which were later made public by the applicant Government and submitted to the Commission [353], describe the situation in Morphou as being similar to that which existed in Voni, Gypsou and Vitsada. The ICRC representative, Mr Zuger, mentioned the following elements of the confinement which may be relevant under Art. 5 of the Convention:

- the persons concerned were mostly elderly men and women and young children;

- they were brought from villages to Morphou;

- they were placed in a school building, under crowded conditions and under guard;

- they were not permitted to go outside the school building.

The UNHCR representative, Mr Kelly, mentioned:

- that the persons concerned were moved from their villages to Morphou by the Turkish army against their will and without an explanation given to them;

- that they were confined to a school building under deplorable physical conditions;

- that they were not allowed to move out of the building;

- that they were not allowed to move their furniture or their personal belongings except a few clothes.

251. Witness Soulioti submitted to the Commission's Delegates the report of a French journalist [354], who stated: He visited Gypsou on 4 October 1974, with the permission of Turkish military authorities and in the company of Turkish army officers. He had to pass through a gate in a barbed wire barricade before arriving at the inhabited area of the village. He visited some private houses which were still inhabited, and there were almost exclusively women [355]. The men were kept in the village school. He managed to obtain permission to visit the school as well. There he saw 245 persons between 50 and 85 years of age. One of them said that some of them were very ill. They had been brought to the school after having been collected from the surrounding villages; they could not go out and did not possess anything but the clothes they had on them when the Turks took them with them [356]. There were also children in the school. The Turks said they were awaiting the re-opening of the school, but the school had been destroyed. The official reason for keeping these children in the "school-prison", as it was called by the journalist: they had tried to steal food [357].

It further appears from the journalist's report that the detainees in the school were not allowed to see their wives. Only occasionally a wife was allowed to bring them soup or coffee. The journalist was told that there would have been enough place in the village to house all the detainees.

252. Witness Soulioti also submitted tables prepared by the Cyprus Red Cross Society from their files containing details of persons transferred to the detention centres Gypsou, Morphou, Vitsada and Voni [358]. The data in these tables are incomplete, but they include at least some information as to the places from which, and the dates at which persons were transferred to the camps.

...................................

253. In her oral testimony concerning the detention centres [359] witness Soulioti referred to them as "concentration areas". She said that she was first informed of the conditions in these centres by the French journalist mentioned above who came to see her after his visit to Gypsou and appealed to the Red Cross to do everything possible for the persons concerned. His statements were later confirmed by persons who had been transferred from Gypsou and Voni.

254. Witness Souioti had the impression that the detention centres were really "concentration camps". They were set up during the second phase of the Turkish military action and were: Voni, Gypsou, Vitsadha and. Marathovouno to the east of Kyrenia and Morphou in the west. The people remaining in, and even those emanating from the villages, especially round the Kythrea area, were taken from their homes and concentrated, the men in the church in one instance, and the women in the school or various houses. The people put in churches, schools or houses were guarded by soldiers; they were not allowed to leave these premises. This was especially the case in Morphou. In other camps they were not allowed to communicate with each other either, to go from one room to the other, or from one house to the other. The persons concerned included old people and children, even babies. At first neither the Red Cross nor the UN had access to these places, but finally the International Red Cross was allowed to visit them, in

late September 1974. According to the witness the commanders of all the detention centres were Turks from the mainland, although some of the guards were Turkish Cypriots. The total number of people in these camps was about 2,440. They were evacuated between 15 November and 29 November 1974 after an intercommunal agreement, brought over by the ICRC and all delivered to the Cyprus Red Cross Society of which the witness is the President.

255. Witness Odysseos, barrister-at-law and former Chairman of the Morphou School Committee, stated [360] that one of the schools in Morphou, the so-called second elementary school, was converted into a "concentration camp". From statements he had collected out of a private interest he knew that sometime in September 1974 all the people who had remained in Morphou (about 600) were moved to the school building. First, they were harassed in their own homes, and they were told: "You better move to the school, it is safer there". An old epileptic women he knew was transported to the school in a lorry. All these people were accommodated in the school building and a private house just next to it. These buildings were only about 50 yards from the police station. The persons detained there were not allowed to take any belongings with them. They were accompanied, and during night time they were not allowed out at all. No exercise was allowed, and the detainees could only move in the room where they were staying. At the beginning the Red Cross was not allowed to visit these people. Later they could come every fortnight and occasionally every week. There was barbed wire behind the school building. Nobody, not even the Morphou people, was allowed to go home to fetch personal belongings. Some elderly people were eventually removed from the school building and put into private residences [361]. According to the witness the detention centre of Morphou existed from September 1974 until July 1975 when the last detainees were released. Some people were also brought to the centre from surrounding villages (Kapouti, Syrianokhori, Zodia, Prastio, Argaki, Katokopia, Pendayia) early in 1975.

256. Witness Iacovou, Director of the Special Service for the Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons, explained to the Commission's Delegation that the Special Service was inter alia responsible for providing the food deliveries for the Greek Cypriots enclaved in the north of Cyprus [362]. He stated further that the conditions mentioned in the Zuger and Kelly statements mentioned above [363] were not to be found throughout the area controlled by the Turkish army. They were typical of Morphou, Gypsou, Voni and Vitsada, which were "very little less than concentration camps". According to his knowledge only a few hundred people were involved in all this [364].

257. The Commission's Delegation also heard some persons in refugee camps who stated that they themselves and/or members of their families were detained in one or other of the above-mentioned centres.

Thus refugee D, a farmer from Palekythro, stated that he was taken to Voni on 21 August 1974, eight days after the Turkish troops had advanced to his area. According to him 500 people were kept there, the men in the church, the women and children in the school, and some old people in private houses. They were all guarded by the Turks. In the church, where he was kept, there were about 120 persons. They were not allowed to leave the church to pass water, but people went to a flour store close by and to houses in the village in order to provide themselves with food. He stayed in Voni for about three months. The camp was evacuated in batches. About 200 people left in groups of 10 to 50 [365].

Refugee J, a boy of eleven years of age, stated that he was kept in the school of Voni, together with the women. According to him the Turkish soldiers gave orders that if they left the school they would be shot [366].

Refugee B from Trakhoni stated that her father was detained in Voni. According to her account the people there were guarded by Turkish soldiers only, not by Turkish Cypriots, and they were punished if they did not obey their orders, e.g. not to speak to each other [367].

Refugee E stated that he was taken from his house in Kythrea to a house in Marathovouno where he was kept for three days, then to Vitsada, where he stayed for a month, and finally to Gypsou where he spent another three months [368].

258. Many of the written statements submitted by the applicant Government indicate that the authors were detained in one or several of the above-mentioned centres.

Most of these statements refer to the conditions in Voni [369]. On the whole they confirm the testimony of the persons in the refugee camps, with the exception of one saying that the guards were only Turkish Cypriots [370]. According to another written statement a registration of detainees in Voni was made on 21 August 1974 by a Turkish officer with the assistance of a named Greek Cypriot, showing that there were 654 in all. [371]. Another statement said that detainees in Voni were not allowed to communicate with the persons in other premises [372].

A number of statements also referred to detention in Marathovouno, Vitsada and Gypsou [373]. All the persons who stated that they had been detained in Marathovouno said that they were later transferred to Vitsada, and some eventually to Gypsou.

(b) Use of private houses for confinement

259. It appears from the testimony of witnesses and persons heard in refugee camps as well as from statements submitted by the applicant Government that a number of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus were confined to private houses and not allowed to leave them at all. Their situation was thus different from that of the "enclaved" Greek Cypriots mentioned above [374], and they were normally referred to by the witnesses as "detained persons".

260. The lists of numbers of persons transferred to detention centres submitted by witness Soulioti expressly state with regard to Morphou that out of a total of 579 detainees 55 were kept in a house in Miaoulis Street, 63 in a house in Apollon Street, and 50 in other houses [375]. The report by a French journalist on conditions in Gypsou, submitted by the same witness [376], also distinguished between persons detained in houses (mostly old women) and those who were detained in the school. Witness Soulioti repeatedly mentioned private houses in connection with detention centres also in her oral statement to the Commission's Delegation [377].

261. Witness Stylianou similarly referred to the detention of small groups of persons in private houses which are not connected with detention centres, and gave figures for some villages in the Kyrenia district as of August 1975 [378]. He stated that these small groups of e.g. only 5 people in on case (Ayia Irene) were regularly kept in one house, and in some cases, e.g. in Lapithos, in two or three houses, though there were 131 persons in all. They had been expelled from their own houses and transferred to other houses, and they were guarded by Turkish soldiers patrolling them [379].

262. Witness Odysseos mentioned private houses in connection with the detention centre in Morphou. From his statements it appears that in a small private house near to the school building which served as detention centre some 60 persons Were kept under similar conditions as in the school [380]. Later some elderly people were removed from the school and taken to three private residences in Morphou, namely some 50 to a pharmacist's house in Solomos Street, 30-35 to a house in Miaouli Street, and 48 to a house in Apollon Street. In February or March 1975 people from the villages Pendayia, Nikitas and Prastio were brought to these houses, and the last of them were only released in July 1975 [381]. The same witness also referred to statements of persons who said they had been concentrated in two or three houses in Pendayia. They were brought there from surrounding villages, Xeros, Karavostassi, Potamos tou Kambou and Petra [382].

263. Witness Tryfon submitted some statements of persona he said, had been made to the Cyprus Land and Property Owners' Association of which he is the chairmen. These persons stated that the Turkish forces had expelled them from their own houses and kept them in other houses, i.a. in Lapithos and Karavas [383].

264. Of the persons interviewed in refugee camps Refugee C stated that she had been detained with other co-villagers for 13 days in an English house at Karmi in which she had earlier taken refuge and to which she had been returned a after a forcible excursion to Boghezi. She stated that the people in that house were not allowed to leave it, nor was access to them allowed to the Rod Cross; they were under the absolute control of the Turks. There was a Turkish Cypriot guarding them, the Turks from Turkey would not allow him to do something for the alleviation of their situation [384]. Refugee D who had been confined to the church of Voni said some old people were put in houses in Voni village [385].

265. Some written statements of persons submitted by the applicant Government also refer to longer periods of confinement in private houses [386].

(c) Confinement to the Dome Hotel in Kyrenia and the village of Bellapais

266. In the first days of the Turkish military action which started on 20 July 1974 with a landing operation in the Kyrenia area, one of the main tourist regions of Cyprus, the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia was used as a refuge and assembly place of foreign tourists. While they were soon evacuated, the Hotel continued to be used as a shelter by many persons whom the UN documents described as being under United Nations "protective custody".

267. According to a UN report of 24 July 1974 they included a number of Greek Cypriot and Greek civilians plus a number of wounded National Guard soldiers [387]. The number of Greek Cypriots in the Hotel was reported to be 500 on 26 July 1974 [388]. The way in which they had come to the Hotel was described in a summary of developments published on 5 August. It stated that Greek Cypriots who had remained in Greek Cypriot towns and villages were brought by Turkish troops to several assembly points, including the Dome Hotel at Kyrenia and in the village Bellapais [389].

268. According to a UN report of 28 July 1974 UNFICYP tried to use its good services for bringing about arrangements that would have enabled Greek Cypriots "detained" at Kyrenia and Bellapais, as well as Turkish Cypriots detained at Limassol and Larnaca, to return to their homes. However, those attempts apparently failed in so far as the Dome Hotel was concerned [390]. At Bellapais the Turkish authorities returned 100 Greek Cypriot prisoners to the village and released them to their homes on 5 August 1974. The UN reported that these persons, together with several hundred Greek Cypriot civilians who had remained in the village, were able to move freely after UNFICYP patrolling had been resumed in the village by agreement with the Turkish military authorities [391].

269. UNFICYP was gradually subjected to certain restrictions affecting its freedom of movement in the, north of Cyprus. Thus it was reported on 30 July 1974 that the Turkish forces informed UNFICYP that any outside assistance intended for Bellapais and the Dome Hotel should be channelled for distribution through the Turkish army [392]. On the first day of the second phase of the Turkish military action, 14 August 1974, the Turkish commander ordered the withdrawal of UNFICYP personnel from the Dome Hotel and Bellapais which had both been used as UN observation posts, and UNFICYP withdrew under protest. Only an ICRC observer remained in the Hotel [393]. Although the UN "protective custody" had thus apparently come to an end the persons in the Hotel remained there. The progress report on the UN Operation in Cyprus covering the period December 1974 to June 1975 stated that of the 350 who were originally confined to the Dome Hotel, only 53 remained. Seven were permitted by the Turkish Cypriot authorities to return to their Kyrenia homes [394].

270. Of the witnesses heard by the Commission's Delegation, the main witness on conditions in the Dome Hotel was Dr. Charalambides, a physician and former Deputy Mayor of Kyrenia, who had himself been confined there until 5 April 1975. He stated [395] that after the Turkish invasion in July 1974 he first stayed in his house in Kyrenia, but when it became too dangerous to remain there he moved with his wife to the Dome Hotel on 23 July. When he arrived in the Hotel there were still some 800 foreigners there who were soon evacuated. Then many people started to take refuge in the Hotel, and some were brought by the UN and others by the Turkish army. After the evacuation of the foreigners there was a total of about 800 persons at the Hotel. They remained under the core of the United Nations for a month. After the second phase of the Turkish military action the UN was obliged to leave, and Turkish Cypriot policemen took over. The Turkish forces remained outside and wore not allowed to come into the hotel.

271. As a physician the witness was allowed to leave the hotel escorted by a Turkish Cypriot policeman in order to see his patients. Initially other persons could also leave the hotel with escorts, e.g. in order to go to the bank, or the market, but more and more restrictions were introduced after Christmas 1974. The Turkish Cypriot police inspector who guarded the hotel entrance got orders from the Turkish commander, to whom he reported whenever a problem arose.

The commander himself visited the hotel three times. The persons confined in the hotel were initially not allowed to walk on the verandahs, so they asked for his permission to go to the hotel's swimming pool. This was granted, and in September they were also allowed to do a walk outside the hotel to Kyrenia harbour twice a week, and to go to a nearby church on Sundays between 9.00 and 11.00 a.m. However, in December 1974 these outings were cancelled without any explanation. The witness asked for a laissez-passer to the police station, in order to be able to carry out his duties as a doctor more easily, but without success. He could, however, occasionally return to his house with an escort in order to pick up surgical instruments or medicaments. Several times the persons confined to the Dome Hotel were promised that they would be allowed to return to their homes; Mr. Denktash who came to the hotel with Mr. Clerides also promised this. The conditions in the hotel were better than in other areas of northern Cyprus. In the beginning there was little room since the hotel's capacity was 600, and there were 800 persons. There were electricity cuts and, later, food rationing. When the witness left in April 1975, there were only 75 persons left in the hotel.

272. Other witnesses, who referred to the conditions in the Dome Hotel as "detention", were:

- Witness Soulioti, who stated that before "real concentration areas" were established during the second phase of the Turkish military operation "a few people were sort of mopped up from the villages west of Kyrenia in the first phase and put in the Dome Hotel" [396]. The Red Crescent Representative, Dr. Pamir, promised the "detainees" in the Dome Hotel in September 1974 that they would soon be allowed to return to their homes [397]. This promise was not kept although they were permitted to take a walk from time to time and to go to church; these privileges were later withdrawn [398];

- Witness Stylianou, who stated that on 4 August 1975 there were still 47 persons detained in the Dome Hotel [399].

- Witness Iacovou, who stated [400] that the people in Kyrenia took refuge in the Dome Hotel because of the atrocities committed in the first days of the Turkish military action. They later wanted to go back to their homes in Kyrenia, but in spite of promises given by the Turkish leadership, they were not allowed to do so. Only about five families were permitted to return to their homes; the remainder were transferred to the area controlled by the applicant Government [401].

273. Only a few of the written statements submitted by the applicant Government refer to the conditions in the Dome Hotel.

- The author of one of these statements [402], a women identified as owner of a supermarket in Kyrenia, said that on 23 July 1974 the Austrian UNCIVPOL civilian police element of UNFICYP) advised all Greek Cypriots to move to the Dome Hotel which was guarded by Austrian and Canadian members of the peace-keeping force. Each time Turkish soldiers from Turkey or Turkish Cypriots visited the hotel premises they were escorted by members of UNFICYP. On the other hand, UNFICYP and ICRC delegations and foreign journalists who came to the hotel had to be escorted by Turkish military or police personnel who were present at every contact the persons confined to the hotel had with foreigners. The Turks also prevented the free movement of UNFICYP personnel within the hotel premises. One day they transferred all men between 18 and 58 to Saray prison in Nicosia for interrogation, without any UN escort; only some elderly persons and British citizens were returned to the Dome Hotel after six days. In mid August the Turkish army and police officers gave a three-hour warning to UNFICYP to leave the hotel and hand it over to them, otherwise they would be shot at. UNFICYP left after having informed the persons in the hotel that they had received assurances that nothing would happen to them. Later Turkish soldiers permitted members of the Red Cross to Stay with the people in the hotel. Turkish soldiers were free to enter the hotel and occasionally brought with them journalists from Turkey to hold interviews. The persons confined to the hotel formed a committee which dealt with all their problems. Before the author of the statement was released together with her family on 15 September 1974, they were told by Turkish soldiers that they would be exchanged with Turkish prisoners.

- The author of another statement [403], identified as a 23 year-old woman, stated that she had gone to the Dome Hotel together with her family on 23 July 1974, following the occupation of Kyrenia by the Turkish army on the preceding day. The entrance and surroundings of the hotel were guarded by Turkish policeman and Turkish military policemen. On the following days Turkish soldiers brought to the hotel Greek inhabitants of Kyrenia and surrounding villages (Ayios Georgios, Trimithi, Karmi, Fterikha, Karavas), altogether about 400 persons. Early in October persons confined to the hotel were given permission to go to their homes in order to inspect them, under escort. On 6 October after being granted permission, they were accompanied by Turks to the church of K. Kyrenia in order to clean it.

IV. Evaluation of evidence obtained

274. The Commission considers that the evidence obtained establishes that Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus were confined for considerable periods of time at certain locations, including detention centres, private houses, and the Dome Hotel in Kyrenia.

275. As regards detention centres, it has been established that such centres existed in schools and churches at Voni, Gypsou and Morphou. There is also evidence concerning the existence of similar centres at Marathovouno and Vitsada but the Commission is unable, on the basis of the material before it, fully to determine the conditions which existed there. It appears from written and oral statements that the detention centres in these two villages were evacuated to Gypsou before the intercommunal arrangements for the transfer to the south of Cyprus of persons subjected to such measures of confinement were concluded in November 1974. This would explain why the relevant intercommunal agreement mentions only Gypsou and Voni. The evidence also shows that the centre at Morphou was not fully established until a later stage.

276. The Commission finds it proved that more than 2,000 Greek Cypriots, mainly civilians, including old people and children, were transferred to the centres, and that their freedom of movement was consequently restricted to the respective premises where they were kept under guard in miserable conditions. Apart from the written and oral evidence of persons who stated that they had themselves been kept in one or several of the centres, this was also confirmed by independent sources such as the statements of UNHCR and ICRC officials at an intercommunal meeting, the record cf which the Commission accepts as correct, and in the report of a journalist describing the conditions in Gypsou. Although the relevant UN documents do not contain details about conditions in the centres, they do not in any way contradict the above findings but rather tend to confirm them. The period of confinement in these centres was in most cases two to three months.

277. As regards confinement in private houses the Commission considers that a distinction should be made between houses used in connection with detention centres, and other houses.

(a) There is evidence showing that at least at Gypsou and Morphou some private residences were used as annexes of the detention centres established there. The Greek Cypriots confined to these houses lived in the same, if not worse, conditions as those in the school and church, and were guarded together with them.

(b) There is also evidence that elsewhere, too, e.g. in Lapithos Greek Cypriots were confined to private houses either their own ones or houses to which they were transferred. There are strong indications that conditions in these houses were sometimes similar to those in the detention centres, but the Commission has been unable, on the basis of the evidence before it, to establish a clear picture of all the relevant circumstances, e.g. as to the duration of the confinement, the number of persons concerned, whether they were continuously guarded, etc.

278. Finally, as regards the confinement of Greek Cypriots in the Dome Hotel the Commission finds that it developed from an original situation of UN protective custody, such as it also existed in the village of Bellapais. Although it has been established to the Commission's satisfaction that some Greek Cypriots from Kyrenia and the surrounding villages were brought to the Hotel by Turkish troops while it was still under UN control, it is not clear whether this happened against their will. In addition to them there were no doubt many, including the Commission's main witness in this matter, Dr Charalambides, who went to the Hotel of their own volition, some on the advice of UNFICYP, in order to take refuge there. However, the Commission finds it established that the persons in the Hotel were soon subjected to restrictions of their freedom of movement. They could only leave the Hotel under escort after having obtained permission, which was given on a restrictive basis for reasons such as shopping, visits to church, walks for exercise twice a week, and apparently once early in October 1974 in order to inspect their houses. With this exception the persons confined to the Hotel were not allowed to go to their houses. The arrangements made for Dr Charalambides, who was permitted to fetch medicaments and surgical instruments from his house, and to visit patients in Kyrenia–town, were apparently of a special character and cannot be considered as representative. The Commission further finds it established that, after the withdrawal of UNFICYP, the Dome Hotel was guarded by Turkish Cypriots under the orders of a Turkish Commander, who occasionally came to the Hotel for inspection. The practice concerning permission to leave the Hotel became gradually more restrictive, especially after Christmas 1974. The majority of persons confined to the Hotel were apparently transferred to the south of Cyprus during the first half of 1975.

V. Responsibility of Turkey under the Convention

279. It has been established that many of the persons confined to detention centres or the Dome Hotel were brought there by the Turkish army [404].

280. It has also been established that the detention centres were under the command of Turkish army officers, to whom the guarding personnel, including Turkish soldiers and Turkish Cypriot policemen, reported if important issues had to be decided. [[405]]

281. A similar situation existed at the Dome Hotel after 14 August 1974 when UNFICYP was forced to withdraw and the full control passed to the Turkish military authorities [406]. However, the Commission has been unable, on the basis of the evidence before it, fully to establish the extent of Turkish control with regard to the Hotel before that date [407].

282. It follows that the persons confined in the detention centres, and those confined in the Dome Hotel after 14 August 1974, were under the actual control of the Turkish army. Turkey thus exercised jurisdiction, within the meaning of Art. 1 of the Convention as interpreted in the Commission's decision on admissibility, in respect of those persons and their confinement must therefore be imputed to Turkey under the Convention.

283. As regards confinement to private houses, the Commission finds that the circumstances in private residences attached to detention centres were the same as in these centres and the confinement of Greek Cypriots to these houses must therefore equally be imputed to Turkey because these persons were under the command of Turkish army officers and guarded with the assistance of Turkish soldiers [408].

284. On the other hand, the Commission has not been able fully to establish the circumstances of confinement to other, isolated private houses. However, there are strong indications that these premises, too, were often under the control of the Turkish army [409].

VI. Conclusions

285. The Commission, by 13 votes against one, considers that the confinement of more than two thousand Greek Cypriots to detention centres established in schools and churches at Voni, Gypsou and Morphou, which is imputable to Turkey, amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Art. 5 (1) of the Convention. The confinement to these centres was not ordered in accordance with any procedure prescribed by law, and did not serve any of the purposes justifying detention which are mentioned in sub—paragraphs (a) to (f) of Art. 5 para. (1). It follows that the confinement of Greek Cypriots in the above detention centres was not in confirmity with Art. 5 (1) of the Convention.

286. The Commission further considers, by 13 votes against one, that the confinement of Greek Cypriots to private houses in Gypsou and Morphou, where they were kept under similar circumstances as in the detention centres, was equally a deprivation of liberty contrary to Art. 5 (1) of the Convention, imputable to Turkey.

287. Finally, as regards the Dome Hotel, the Commission is not called upon to examine the compatibility of the initial "protective custody" of the United Nation's with the provisions of Art. 5 of the Convention. Since it has not been fully determined to what extent the Turkish authorities controlled the Hotel prior to the withdrawal of UNFICYP the Commission proposes to limit its findings to the period after 14 August 1974 when the full responsibility for the Hotel passed to the Turkish authorities.

288. The confinement, after this date, of Greek Cypriots to the premises of the Hotel, with no possibility of leaving without permission and without being escorted, was in the Commission's opinion a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Art. 5 (1) of the Convention. This deprivation of liberty was not ordered in accordance with any procedure prescribed by law, nor did it serve any of the purposes enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Art. 5 (1) as justifying detention.

The Commission concludes, by ten votes against two with two abstentions, that the confinement of Greek Cypriots to the Kyrenia Dome Hotel after 14 August 1974, imputable to Turkey, was not in conformity with Art. 5 (1) of the Convention.

289. The question whether any of the above deprivations of liberty may have been justified under Art. 15 (1) of the Convention is reserved for consideration in Part III of this Report.