Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

So seeing that 20.000 did remain and were not killed, it is a myth that GC were forced out they could have remained in their homes and not run off deserting them.

Do you feel that any of the following points may have a bearing on why these people left?

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.ns ... enDocument

The European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey guilty of human rights violations of the enclaved

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found Turkey guilty of human rights violations during and after the invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. In its judgment on May 10, 2001, in the case of Cyprus V. Turkey (application no.25781/94), the Court found Turkey guilty, by sixteen votes to one (the Turkish vote), of 14 violations of the European Convention of Human Rights. Out of these, seven violations concerned the living conditions of the enclaved people in the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus. More specifically, the Court held that Turkey committed the following violations:

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life.

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship.

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised.

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them.

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpass area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment.

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home.

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

[CopperLine]

The treaty of lausaune was a popultation exchange between greece and turkey however the property issue concerning greeks of turkey and turks of greece was solved with a seperate agreement in 1930 called THE Ankara protocol SIGHNED between Venizelos and Kemal ataturk that dealt with the properites of the refugees.

http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/14/en/1923_19 ... ns/06.html

Thanks for that. I have personally known quite a few people who come from families that were resettled under the Treaty of Lausanne population exchange. It is a topic that interests me and it is very hard to find information about it.

Tim, if you are interested, probably the two best books on the T.of Lausanne (at least on pop. exch) are by Dimitri Pentzopolous and for general context Michael Llewellyn-Smith.

Typically, Denktash's attempted association with ToLausanne is profoundly historically wrong and mistaken. He might, for example, have asked the simple question why Cyprus was not even mentioned in the months of negotiation before and during Lausanne. No doubt much to the chagrin of Denktash, the answer is that Ataturk and the new Turkish nationalist movement never considered the Turkish-speaking population of Cyprus or its Muslim population as an integral part of the new Turkey nor a part of the so-called Turkish nation. Cyprus was never considered Turkish never mind how long it had been part of the Ottoman empire. That Cyprus was Turkish was largely an invention of Denktash and others of his generation.

[Jerry]

Details of the actual "exchanges" were mentioned in Christopher Hitchens book "Cyprus". Typically Denktash did not keep his word and the expulsions continued.

[Viewpoint]

So seeing that 20.000 did remain and were not killed, it is a myth that GC were forced out they could have remained in their homes and not run off deserting them.

Do you feel that any of the following points may have a bearing on why these people left?

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.ns ... enDocument

The European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey guilty of human rights violations of the enclaved

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found Turkey guilty of human rights violations during and after the invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. In its judgment on May 10, 2001, in the case of Cyprus V. Turkey (application no.25781/94), the Court found Turkey guilty, by sixteen votes to one (the Turkish vote), of 14 violations of the European Convention of Human Rights. Out of these, seven violations concerned the living conditions of the enclaved people in the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus. More specifically, the Court held that Turkey committed the following violations:

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life.

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship.

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised.

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them.

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpass area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment.

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home.

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Ho when the shoe is on the other foot, where were you in 1963?

[Tim Drayton]

So seeing that 20.000 did remain and were not killed, it is a myth that GC were forced out they could have remained in their homes and not run off deserting them.

Do you feel that any of the following points may have a bearing on why these people left?

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.ns ... enDocument

The European Court of Human Rights finds Turkey guilty of human rights violations of the enclaved

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found Turkey guilty of human rights violations during and after the invasion and occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. In its judgment on May 10, 2001, in the case of Cyprus V. Turkey (application no.25781/94), the Court found Turkey guilty, by sixteen votes to one (the Turkish vote), of 14 violations of the European Convention of Human Rights. Out of these, seven violations concerned the living conditions of the enclaved people in the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus. More specifically, the Court held that Turkey committed the following violations:

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life.

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship.

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised.

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them.

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpass area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment.

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home.

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence, as a matter of practice, of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Ho when the shoe is on the other foot, where were you in 1963?

I.e. 'They started it first'.