Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Nothing was "implied" . A simple fact was stated along with refs to the case.

Nothing implied but a need for bold and 150 point text ?

The fact that in the matters of Kazali and others v CY at the ECHR in 2008, Case No 49247/08, that the ECHR found no violations and declared the case inadmissible. Fact.

This is not a fact at all - it is a classic manipulation of facts. The case(s) you referred to had two parts. A main part to do with alleged violations of TC rights to property by the Roc and a secondary part described by the ECHR as "Some of the applicants made a number of other complaints, including complaints directed against Greece and the United Kingdom (see paragraphs 103-106 above)." It is ONLY in the second part that the ECHR found no violations and even then is usage of words is interesting "finds no appearance of a violation" vs your "no violation". In the first part, the main substantive part of these claims, they did NOT declare there were no violations at all, just that the cases were currently inadmissible, because a new law (revision forced by the Safi case) came into effect, since the claims were submitted to the ECHR and this has to also be exhausted before a claim to the ECHR can become admissible and THEN the court will determine if there are violations or not. The FACT of these cases is part 1 - inadmissible (until the plaintiffs exhausted local remedies of the now amended law) at which time they can if still not satisfied re submit the claims to the ECHR who will THEN decide if their are violations or not and a 2nd part were no violations were found. You present this as 'no violations' re both parts which is simply untrue.

Your blatant manipulation and distortion of fact is shameless Bill but totally consistent with your history of such individually and communally.

Erol is incorrect in saying the following... " We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..."

Indeed I was incorrect and I thank you for pointing these cases out that I was unaware of until you did so. These cases are also currently 'inadmissible' because the court does not think that the RoC has had enough time since Oct 2010 when investigation into the alleged crimes was started for the court to yet rule. These claims are not 'going away' and eventually they will have to face these claims in the ECHR.

So, would you agree Erol that you were incorrect when you claimed that... "" We are yet to see a Cypriot take a case against the RoC to the ECHR re their 'missing' in the period 64-74. ..." ... ???

I would and indeed I have above.

Communally?? Yeah right, it's us who call the Turkish Invasion a "peace" operation...

[erolz66]

Communally?? Yeah right, it's us who call the Turkish Invasion a "peace" operation...

Communally both sides stick to their propaganda versions of history. At least I can claim to not do so as an individual and to recognise that that both sides are the same. To imagine and argue that its only 'our' side that does this is, is itself a classic example of such a communal propaganda.

[Pyrpolizer]

Communally?? Yeah right, it's us who call the Turkish Invasion a "peace" operation...

Communally both sides stick to their propaganda versions of history. At least I can claim to not do so as an individual and to recognise that that both sides are the same. To imagine and argue that its only 'our' side that does this is, is itself a classic example of such a communal propaganda.

I haven't seen that in your reply to BillC, but maybe i am too blind to see it, could you point it out to me?

[erolz66]

I haven't seen that in your reply to BillC, but maybe i am too blind to see it, could you point it out to me?

You have not seen Bills blatant distortion and misrepresentation of fact, as pointed out by me ? How could I make it any clearer ? Bill makes out it is a fact that the case(s) he cites, all prts of them, were ruled by the ECHR as 'no violation' - yet this is clearly and plainly not true. Is that clear enough ?

[bill cobbett]

I haven't seen that in your reply to BillC, but maybe i am too blind to see it, could you point it out to me?

You have not seen Bills blatant distortion and misrepresentation of fact, as pointed out by me ? How could I make it any clearer ? Bill makes out it is a fact that the case(s) he cites, all prts of them, were ruled by the ECHR as 'no violation' - yet this is clearly and plainly not true. Is that clear enough ?

You really are being childishly silly again Erol.

So again you have to be told in pretty simple language that in the two cases that ended in judgments (one of which you have already admitted you never even knew existed), the ECHR found no violations against the Republic. FACT.

If the ECHR did find violations ... then please tell us, in equally simple language, which Articles of the Convention were violated by the Republic...???

[erolz66]

So again you have to be told in pretty simple language that in the two cases that ended in judgments (one of which you have already admitted you never even knew existed), the ECHR found no violations against the Republic. FACT.

And still your distortion continues.

A ruling of 'no violation' from the ECHR means they have considered the merits of the case, considered it admissible and made a decision that there was not a violation by the RoC.

A ruling of 'not admissible' means the court has not made any judgment on the case at all beyond that currently it is not admissible for them to make a judgment on.

That you seek to present the second of these scenarios as the same as the first just shows you wilful intent to distort. The first example 'vindicates' the RoC of wrong doing, the second means the court has not (yet) made a judgment at all on if the RoC has violated the ECHR charter. They are totally different things yet you actively seek to portray them as the same and the attempt is as blatant as it is pathetic - and as I say totally consistent with a pattern of distortion with intent used systematically by some individuals like yourself and communally by both communities. It boring, its futile and it is exactly the kind of BS that sustains the status quo.

You do accept that the RoC ITSELF admitted violating the rights of TC in regards to their property in the South in the SOFI case ? You do accept that their admitting such violations and settling this claim (to the tune of over 1/2 a million euros) was cynical 'gaming' of the ECHR process, given that they did so one day before the ECHR was to make a judgment ? You do accept that those you cited (and claimed a ruling of 'no violation' was given against) can and probably will return to the ECHR in regards to their property if they first exhaust the (new since they made the claim) local remedy and still are not satisfied ?

[bill cobbett]

So again you have to be told in pretty simple language that in the two cases that ended in judgments (one of which you have already admitted you never even knew existed), the ECHR found no violations against the Republic. FACT.

And still your distortion continues.

A ruling of 'no violation' from the ECHR means they have considered the merits of the case, considered it admissible and made a decision that there was not a violation by the RoC.

A ruling of 'not admissible' means the court has not made any judgment on the case at all beyond that currently it is not admissible for them to make a judgment on.

That you seek to present the second of these scenarios as the same as the first just shows you wilful intent to distort. The first example 'vindicates' the RoC of wrong doing, the second means the court has not (yet) made a judgment at all on if the RoC has violated the ECHR charter. They are totally different things yet you actively seek to portray them as the same and the attempt is as blatant as it is pathetic - and as I say totally consistent with a pattern of distortion with intent used systematically by some individuals like yourself and communally by both communities. It boring, its futile and it is exactly the kind of BS that sustains the status quo.

You do accept that the RoC ITSELF admitted violating the rights of TC in regards to their property in the South in the SOFI case ? You do accept that their admitting such violations and settling this claim (to the tune of over 1/2 a million euros) was cynical 'gaming' of the ECHR process, given that they did so one day before the ECHR was to make a judgment ? You do accept that those you cited (and claimed a ruling of 'no violation' was given against) can and probably will return to the ECHR in regards to their property if they first exhaust the (new since they made the claim) local remedy and still are not satisfied ?

Again you have to be told that the ECHR has found no violations by the Republic in two Judgments.

... and as you disagree, you have to be asked again to tell us which Articles of the Convention the ECHR found had been violated by CY.

When you've enlightened us Erol, we'll move on to local remedies, the Sofi matter and people being, as you say, "satisfied".

[erolz66]

Again you have to be told that the ECHR has found no violations by the Republic in two Judgments.

And I may just as well claim that the ECHR has found no violations against Turkey in the 1500 odd cases by GC against Turkey, that now have to be referred to the IPC, for on none of those can you show me where the ECHR states a violation by Turkey.

It is pathetic Bill. That you try and continue to make out you did not with intent seek to distort facts, when you have been so clearly caught in the act just shows how pathetic. You may as well start with 'liar liar pants on fire' if this is to be the quality of your 'arguments'.

Is a ruling by the ECHR of 'no violation' the same or different from one of 'not admissible' ? Simple question Bill. Will you dare to answer it ?

[bill cobbett]

Again you have to be told that the ECHR has found no violations by the Republic in two Judgments.

And I may just as well claim that the ECHR has found no violations against Turkey in the 1500 odd cases by GC against Turkey, that now have to be referred to the IPC, for on none of those can you show me where the ECHR states a violation by Turkey.

It is pathetic Bill. That you try and continue to make out you did not with intent seek to distort facts, when you have been so clearly caught in the act just shows how pathetic. You may as well start with 'liar liar pants on fire' if this is to be the quality of your 'arguments'.

Is a ruling by the ECHR of 'no violation' the same or different from one of 'not admissible' ? Simple question Bill. Will you dare to answer it ?

Erol, you're just proving that you're more of a poser than a poster.

Now, rather than changing words from one post to the next...

You have been told time and time again that the ECHR has found no violations against the Republic in two Judgments.

... and as you disagree, you have to be asked again to tell us which Articles of the Convention, the ECHR found had been violated by CY.

[erolz66]

So I guess the answer to 'Simple question Bill, will you dare to answer it ?' is no you will not.

The fact is that in those cases of GC who have outstanding cases against Turkey over property, the ECHR has ruled on mass all of them 'not admissible', in light of the new domestic remedy of the IPC that has not been exhausted. If I was the kind of propaganda BS artist that you are I would post in bold and 150 point text that in all those 1500 odd cases "The ECHR found no violations against Turkey and declared the case Inadmisable (sic)." with the clear BS implication that the ECHR has deemed Turkey not in violation of these people rights. This is EXACTLY what you have tried to do here. Its BS , its pathetic, its part of a systematic pattern of such distortions by you and it is just the kind of BS that has got us exactly no where for the last 50 years. Well done - keep up the good work.