Sotos wrote: I believe every human being is supposed to be protected by the ECHR. So "trnc citizenship" is really irrelevant. Are you saying that a Turkish Settler who was given "trnc citizenship" will be seen in a different way from a Turkish settler who did not?
No I am saying that anyone who's human rights are being denied by a signatury country(member country) of the CoE (Council of Europe which is not the same as the EU) has recourse to the ECHR. In the case of the "TRNC" it has already been ruled that although the "TRNC" is not a signatury country to the CoE, nor could it be for it is not a country and it is not recongised as legitmate in internatioinal law, as far as abuses of human rights goes it has been deemed by the ECHR in previous test cases Turkey, which is member of the CoE, is the 'putable' party, ie must answer to the ECHR for abuse of human rights pepetrated by it.
That is how the ECHR rights work. It is specificaly a court that allows indivduals whos rights have been violated by a Signatory State, to seek redress. There on no limits on who it covers and nor can national governments that are signatories pass laws that limnit it scope or jurisdiction. It 'protects' anyone who's rights are being denied by a signatory country without exception.
When the first cases were brought By GC against Turkey for denial of use of property and many other offenses relating to things in the "TRNC" , Turkeys first attempt at defense in front of the ECHR was that it was not the 'liable' party , the TRNC was. The ECHR denied that as valid defense and ruled that it was the liable party for human rights offenses comitted by the TRNC, which in this regard was considered by the ECHR as an 'agent' of Turkey.
A key point about the ECHR and its rulings with reagrds to indivduals who win judgments from it against member states is that the the rulings it hands down come in two parts. One is an order to the state concerned to compensate the indivdual who claimed against the state for a violation fo their rights. The second part is an order that the state provide means to stop future such abuses and to provide a local remedy for others who have suffered similar loss to the original indivdual who brought the case. The IPC is the ECHR deemed mechasim by which Turkey must provide a local means of redress to those who suffered similar loss to the orginal indivdual (in this case principaly - I cant spell this - Lozidou ?)
The other thing about the ECHR is that it is a legal body that gives binding legal judgments , that superceed any national laws of signatory states, unlike the UN. What is more is that it has real meanigful sanctions that it can apply to member states that faile to uphold its judgments. THe ultimate sanction being expulsion of said state from the CoE (Council of Europe).
The idea that the ECHR protects one group of people against abuses by a member state, but not another is just pure and absolute nonsense.
Sotos wrote:But to have a real breakthrough that means we agree on something and then we can move on something else. If you revert to your earlier position after just one paragraph then we are back on square one! You should permanently stop implying that there is some separate state in the north where we are foreigners. It is offensive and it is not true. The equivalent of you saying such thing is me saying that TCs are not real Cypriots and they are foreigners in Cyprus etc etc. I can do that and I did that with those who were asking for it! But I thought you wanted something different!!!
I am sorry but I am just not sure what you 'want' from me. An entity that calls itself the "TRNC" exists. It has de facto control the North of Cyprus. It does not have de jure control of that area. As an entity it aspires to be a recongised state, but that is an aspiration that is in direct conflict with international law as espoused by UN resoultions and ruling of interntional courts. No country in the world recognises it as legitimate other than Turkey, though that does not mean anything done by it automaticaly also illegtimate (see namibia exception). It is tecnicaly considered an non recognised state under international law. That this 'label' includes the word state does not mean that it has any legaly validty as recognised states. It means exacvtly the opposite, it has no such validity in the eyse of the international community and what is more no normal state should do anything that implies or could imply it has any kind of legal validity, other than in those areas commonly refferd to as the namibia exceptions.
Do you have an issue with the above ? I really don't undertand why it is you think I have 'gone backwards' ?
If he lives in occupied Cyprus and if he criticizes the actions of Turkey then if everybody knew who he was that could create him a lot of problems and even put his life at risk! But I think you know this already and this is why you are doing this. You are trying to silence him by exposing his real ID and make him to be afraid to say his opinion freely!
