AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 25781/94
                      introduced by CYPRUS
                      against TURKEY

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
28 June 1996, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President
                 H. DANELIUS
                 C.L. ROZAKIS
                 E. BUSUTTIL
                 G. JÖRUNDSSON
                 A. WEITZEL
                 J.-C. SOYER
           Mrs.  J. LIDDY
           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
                 B. MARXER
                 M.A. NOWICKI
                 I. CABRAL BARRETO
                 B. CONFORTI
                 I. BÉKÉS
                 J. MUCHA
                 G. RESS
                 A. PERENIC
                 P. LORENZEN
                 K. HERNDL

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 24 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 22 November 1994
by the Government of Cyprus against the Government of Turkey and
registered on 24 November 1994 under file No. 25781/94;

      Having regard to :

-     the observations on the admissibility of the application
      submitted by the respondent Government on 10 July 1995;

-     the observations in reply submitted by the applicant Government
      on 19 December 1995;

-     the additional documentary material submitted by the applicant
      Government on 11 and 13 June 1996 and by the respondent
      Government on 24 and 28 June 1996;

-     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 28 June 1996;

-     the report provided for in Rule 45 para. 2 of the Commission's
      Rules of Procedure;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1.    Original submissions

      On 22 November 1994 the applicant Government submitted the
application to the Commission in the following terms:

      "1.  The Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the Council
      of Europe and High Contracting Party to the European
      Convention on Human Rights and the Additional Protocols
      thereto requests under Article 24 of the European
      Convention on Human Rights the Secretary General of the
      Council of Europe to refer to the European Commission of
      Human Rights the following breaches of provisions of the
      Convention and its First Protocol committed by the Republic
      of Turkey, a Member State of the Council of Europe and High
      Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human
      Rights and Additional Protocols thereto.

      2.  The Republic of Cyprus contends that the Republic of
      Turkey since 4 October 1983, when the European Commission
      of Human Rights adopted its Report in respect of
      Application No. 8007/77, for violations of human rights by
      Turkey in the areas occupied by the Turkish army in Cyprus,
      continues to commit breaches of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
      8, 9, 11, 13 of the Convention and of Articles 1, 2, 3 of
      the First Protocol and of Articles 14 and 17 of the
      Convention in conjunction with all the above mentioned
      Articles.

      3.  Turkey continues to occupy about 40% of the territory
      of the Republic of Cyprus seized in consequence of the
      invasion of Cyprus by Turkish troops on 20 July 1974.

      4.  In the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus in question, and
      ever since the adoption of the aforesaid Report by the
      Commission, the following violations of human rights
      continue to be committed, by way of systematic conduct, by
      Turkish state organs and other persons acting with the
      support and knowledge of Turkey, in utter disregard of the
      obligations of Turkey under the European Convention on
      Human Rights:

      (a)  Unlawful detention of at least 1619 missing
           Greek-Cypriots (a considerable number of them
           being civilians) who were unlawfully deprived of
           their liberty, in Turkish custody, in 1974,
           Turkey having failed until now to account for
           the fate of these persons.

      (b)  Refusal to allow over 170.000 Greek-Cypriots to
           return to their homes in the Turkish occupied
           area of Cyprus.

      (c)  Turkey continued, during also the last six
           months, to force by inhuman methods Greek-
           Cypriots living in the occupied area in question
           to leave their homes and seek refuge in the
           Government-controlled area of Cyprus and they
           are being prevented by Turkey from returning to
           their homes.

      (d)  The homes and properties of the Greek-Cypriots
           mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) above
           continued to be the object of de facto
           expropriation and illegal possession and
           exploitation contrary to Article 1 of the First
           Protocol and the general principles of
           International Law. These continuing violations
           have been intensified through the increased and
           systematic settlement of settlers from Turkey,
           with the encouragement and assistance of Turkey,
           against the will of the lawful Government of
           Cyprus.  Also, the agricultural produce of the
           Greek-Cypriot properties continue to be
           collected and exported to markets in several
           European and other countries against the will of
           the lawful owners thereof.

      (e)  Families were and are still separated as a
           result of the aforesaid continued refusal of
           Turkey to allow the displaced Greek-Cypriots to
           return to their homes in the Turkish occupied
           area of Cyprus.

      (f)  Through the continued and organised settlement
           of settlers from Turkey in the occupied area of
           Cyprus violations of the rights of the Greek-
           Cypriots under Article 8 of the Convention and
           Article 1 of the First Protocol have been
           continuously taking place.

      (g)  In concrete cases inhuman treatment of Greek-
           Cypriots still living in the occupied part of
           Cyprus has taken place contrary to Articles 3,
           5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Convention and Article 2 of
           the First Protocol.  Particulars of such
           treatment will be made available in due course.

      (h)  The above displacement of Greek-Cypriots and the
           carrying out of elections by the illegal regime
           operating in the Turkish occupied area of
           Cyprus, with the support of Turkey, has resulted
           in violations of the rights of the displaced
           Greek-Cypriots under Article 3 of the First
           Protocol.

      5.   The situation resulting from the Turkish occupation of
      the area of Cyprus in question continues to affect also the
      rights and freedoms of Turkish-Cypriots living there,
      particularly of those who in furtherance of Turkey's
      political aims were forced and induced to move from the
      southern part of Cyprus where they had their homes and
      properties.  More specifically there have been and continue
      to be violations of the rights of Turkish-Cypriots to
      return to their homes and properties and to associate
      freely with Greek-Cypriots living in the Government-
      controlled area.

      6.   No military operations or any fighting whatsoever has
      taken place during the period to which the present
      application relates.

      7.   The violations in question were directed against
      Greek-Cypriots because of their ethnic origin and religion.

      8.   The victims of the above violations have no effective
      remedy as provided under Article 13 of the Convention.

      9.   No remedy in Turkish Courts was under the
      circumstances likely to be effective and adequate for the
      violations in question.  In any case, all the above
      violations were committed and continue to be committed
      under such circumstances which excuse the failure to resort
      to any domestic remedy for the purposes of Article 26 of
      the Convention.

      10.  All the above violations will be proved by concrete
      and positive evidence.  Full particulars regarding these
      violations will be made available in due course.

      11.  The Turkish occupied area is still sealed off and the
      Turkish Military Authorities do not allow free access to
      it.

      12.  The Government of the Republic of Cyprus requests the
      Commission to give precedence to the present application in
      view of the extent and continuing nature of the violations
      complained of.

      13.  This application is made without prejudice to
      individual applications against Turkey under Article 25 of
      the Convention which have already been made or which will
      be made in future."

2.    Particulars submitted by the applicant Government

      On 3 March 1995 the applicant Government submitted "Particulars"
of the application, supported by documentary evidence included in
Annexes, which were later supplemented by further material.  These
"Particulars" may be summarised as follows:

a)    As to the scope of Turkey's control over northern Cyprus

      The applicant Government contend that notwithstanding the
creation of local administrative structures ("the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus" - TRNC), Turkey continues to be exclusively
responsible under international law for events in northern Cyprus,
including any violations of the Convention, because it exercises
"exclusive de facto actual authority and effective control" and thus
"jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention over
all persons and property in this area which in the applicant
Government's submission continues to be under the military occupation
of Turkey.

      The applicant Government claim that, apart from Turkey's legal
responsibility for northern Cyprus under the general principles of
international law, "Turkey's actual overall control is pervasive and
has been unaffected by her establishment and/or sponsorship of illegal
local administrative structures".  It is claimed that "the local
administrative apparatus is in fact subject at all times to Turkey's
informal direction.  It is financially and physically dependent on and
directed by Turkey.  In short, Turkey has unfettered and unimpeded
power to enforce obedience to her behests, despite any appearance of
puppet institutions.  If violations of human rights are effected by
such institutions and persons acting under their purported authority,
Turkey has both the duty and the actual power to act to prevent, stop
and remedy such violations: it is Turkey's support to the illegal local
administrative apparatus which keeps it in being; Turkey has full
knowledge of decisions and conduct by so-called 'officials' of that
apparatus; and, from behind the scenes, Turkey directs it."

      In support of these allegations, the applicant Government submit
the following:

-     The presence of over 30.000 members of the armed forces of Turkey
in northern Cyprus make it "one of the most highly militarised areas
in the world in terms of the ratio between numbers of troops and
civilian population".  Allegedly, there has been a recent increase in
the numbers of troops and upgrading of their equipment.  The troops are
stationed throughout the occupied area and not only in the area
adjacent to the buffer zone.  Turkish military courts exercise
jurisdiction not only over members of the Turkish armed forces, but
also over civilians entering military areas.  Allegedly 90 % of the
occupied territory are military areas of various categories, leaving
only 10 % as "Free Tourist Areas", and even the latter are not excluded
from military enforcement action (Prohibited Military Areas Decree
1979).

-     Fortifications and minefields are maintained by the Turkish armed
forces along the cease-fire lines (which the applicant Government refer
to as "forward defence lines").  The applicant Government contest that
the so-called "buffer zone" is a term of art reflecting the result of
international agreements; as confirmed by UN documents, there are no
agreements concerning the "buffer zone" by which powers were conferred
on Turkish Cypriot authorities.  Rather, it is the Turkish armed forces
who "seal off" the occupied area along the "contact line", permitting
no movement either by Greek or Turkish Cypriots to or from the occupied
area.  Entry into the First Prohibited Military Area (within a distance
of 500 m from the "contact line") requires military authorisation.
Movement across the lines is only exceptionally allowed, subject to
grant of prior permission by the Turkish armed forces.  Also Turkish
Cypriots who work in the area controlled by the Cypriot Government or
at the British Sovereign Base Area of Dhekelia and even UNFICYP members
need the Turkish military authorities' permission for crossing.
Allegedly, the crossing points have been arbitrarily closed by the
Turkish armed forces on certain occasions (e.g. on 11 July 1994
following a judgment of the European Court of Justice relating to the
importation of goods from northern Cyprus into States members of the
European Union).

-     As to the status of the Turkish Cypriot administration in
northern Cyprus, the applicant Government submit that the proclamation
of both the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" (13 February 1975) and
of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (18 November 1983) were
effected with the collaboration and under the responsibility of the
Turkish mainland authorities.  The creation of these local
administrative structures and the purported establishment of diplomatic
relations between Turkey and the TRNC (17 April 1984) have been
condemned and declared legally invalid by the UN Security Council.  The
UN consider that "the Turkish Forces are the party to the cease-fire
established in 1974 and cannot abrogate their responsibility in that
regard".  The TRNC has not been recognised by the international
community.

      The applicant Government claim that the Government of the TRNC
is subject to the authority and directions of the Government of Turkey
and merely a product of Turkey's military occupation: "Turkish State
organs are systematically involved in the governance of the occupied
area and no decisions can be taken without Turkish knowledge and
approval or acquiescence".  Reference is made in this context to the
creation of special bodies in the Republic of Turkey for dealing with
Cyprus issues, and to the manner in which the coordination between
these bodies and the Turkish Cypriot administration is effected.

      Until 1986, the major administrative mechanism to exercise
political control was the "Cyprus Coordination Council" composed of
Turkish Ministers.  Decisions were made in Ankara, submitted to the
Turkish Cypriot Government for approval, and finally adopted and
implemented by that Council.  The present structures include the
existence, in Turkey, of a special State Minister for Coordination of
Cyprus Issues, and of a Council for Aid, under the direct supervision
of the Turkish Deputy Minister for Cypriot Affairs, which plans and
coordinates the application of all funds emanating from Turkey to
northern Cyprus.  Officials of that Council are present in many
departments of the TRNC administration.  Political decisions regarding
the TRNC are coordinated between the Cyprus Desk of the Turkish Foreign
Ministry and the "Special War Department" of the Turkish General Staff.
Allegedly, the Turkish Ambassador to the TRNC from time to time gives
explicit instructions and informal directions to the TRNC Government
and keeps close surveillance on their decision-making, the Embassy
being represented at Cabinet meetings.  The applicant Government claim
that, de facto, northern Cyprus is administered by a committee which
meets regularly every week in Nicosia, and which consists of (i) the
Commander of the Turkish Forces in the occupied area, (ii) the
Commander of the Turkish Cypriot Security Forces, (iii) the Ambassador
of Turkey and (iv) Mr. Denktash.

-     As regards the Turkish Cypriot Security Forces, the applicant
Government claim that they are under the authority and subject to the
orders of the Turkish Army's General Staff.  Their Commander is a
Turkish national on active duty with the Turkish Army.  The expenses
for maintaining these Security Forces are provided by Turkey.

-     Turkish control of the economy of the occupied area has been
formalised by a series of "Economic Cooperation Protocols".  The first
Protocol, signed on 5 December 1986, established a technical committee
composed of Turkish Civil Servants and Turkish Cypriots to direct
finance and economic policy.  A further document signed on 25 July 1990
was designed to integrate the economy of the TRNC with that of Turkey.
The Turkish lira was introduced as the currency in the occupied area.
Another document signed on 6 March 1992 purported to create an Economic
Cooperation Area between Turkey and the TRNC.  Turkey pledged
contributions to the TRNC budget, the financing of investment projects
and technical assistance for drawing up a development plan.  According
to Turkish Cypriot press reports, the Central Bank of the TRNC was
integrated with the Central Bank of Turkey in August 1994.  The
applicant Government also refer to the substantial size of direct
financial payments by Turkey to the TRNC without which the
administration of the occupied area could not function.

-     Finally, the applicant Government observe that Turkish State
organs and the leadership of the TRNC cannot be expected to proclaim
the reality of Turkey's control over the area.  Allegedly, they pursue
a deliberate policy of dissimulating this reality.  Thus it is claimed
that Turkish Cypriot political leaders and the press were warned not
to provide information which could be used by the applicant Government
as evidence of Turkish control in northern Cyprus.  However, the
applicant Government quote a number of "revealing" statements of
politicians published in the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot press which in
their submission show that Turkey is determined, on grounds of national
ideology and strategic military interests, to uphold its control of
northern Cyprus and not to allow any change of the present situation.


b)    As to the alleged violations of the Convention

      The applicant Government refer to the findings in the
Commission's Reports on Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 and
No. 8007/77 and observe that no measures were taken by Turkey since the
adoption of those Reports to end the violations of the Convention
established by the Commission.  They claim in particular that there are
continuing violations concerning the Greek Cypriot missing and
displaced persons. Also new facts have emerged, involving, in
particular, the process of settlement of mainland Turks in the northern
part of Cyprus, the deterioration of the conditions of life of the
people of the Karpas peninsula, and the coercive displacement of Greek
Cypriots from the northern area.  The applicant Government submit that
there is a "continuation of systematic measures and conduct aimed at
the eventual extinction of the Greek Cypriot community in the Karpas
peninsula".  They claim that "the cumulative effect of politically
induced changes in the demographic make-up of the Turkish-controlled
area, including the coercive displacement of Greek Cypriots, the
refusal to allow Greek Cypriots to return to their homes and properties
and the separation of families" amounts in effect to "ethnic
cleansing".  It leads to "continued suffering and frustration to the
victims and their families and to the people of Cyprus as a whole".

      Greek Cypriot missing persons

      The applicant Government submit that at least 1619 Greek
Cypriots, many of them civilians, who were last seen alive in the
occupied area of Cyprus after the Turkish invasion, or in Turkey in the
custody of the Turkish armed forces, are still missing.  The applicant
Government refer to the Commission's findings in this respect in the
Report on Application No. 8007/77.  They point out that since 1975 the
UN General Assembly has called for the tracing and accounting for these
persons, that a Special Committee on Missing Persons has been set up
in 1981, consisting of a Greek Cypriot member, a Turkish Cypriot member
and a Red Cross representative appointed by the UN Secretary General.
The arrangement is between the two Cypriot communities and does not
involve Turkey.  However, due to procedural difficulties, the Committee
achieved no progress in its investigative work.  After a call by the
UN General Assembly in December 1982, it resumed work in March 1984,
but soon its activities again came to a standstill.  Informal work
started after a letter from the UN Secretary General of October 1993,
but certain procedural matters have not been agreed upon.  In any
event, even if it begins formal work, the Committee cannot deal with
Turkey's responsibility or give any remedy against Turkey or any other
bodies or persons.  Turkey herself has not provided any relevant
information about the fate of the missing persons, and the resulting
uncertainty has caused severe suffering to their families.

      Greek Cypriot displaced persons

      The applicant Government submit that Turkey, as a matter of
policy, continues to refuse to allow over 170,000 (with children
211,000) Greek Cypriots to return to their homes in northern Cyprus.
This is effected by the sealing off of the whole northern area by the
Turkish armed forces.  Turkey ignores the resolutions of the UN General
Assembly and Security Council calling for urgent measures to facilitate
the voluntary return of all refugees to their homes in safety.  Turkey
has consistently supported the view that in the Island of Cyprus there
are and must remain two separate demographically homogeneous States.
The applicant Government describe this as "apartheid à la Turque" and
"Turkish racialism".

      As a particular example of this policy, the applicant Government
refer to the situation in the Varosha suburb of Famagusta.  A large
part of the suburb, the so-called "fenced area", remains under the
overt control of the Turkish armed forces, despite Turkey professing
to have handed over control to Turkish Cypriots.  The applicant
Government refer to repeated calls of the UN Security Council since
1984 to hand over this area to the UN for administration prior to Greek
Cypriot settlement, the Security Council considering attempts to settle
any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as
inadmissible.  They further point out that the UN Security Council and
Secretary General hold the Government of Turkey responsible for
maintaining the status quo in the fenced area, and that despite this
in 1994 Turkey sought unilaterally to change long-standing procedures
for access to the fenced area, the Turkish forces refusing to treat
with UNFICYP on this issue and referring them to Turkish Cypriot
authorities.  Except for a Turkish army club, the use of two hotels as
recreational facilities for the Turkish armed forces and a limited
amount of settlement in hostels by students of the Turkish-sponsored
Eastern Mediterranean University, Varosha has remained uninhabited for
20 years.  Turkish Prime Ministers have since 1977 repeatedly declared
that they refuse to hand over Varosha to Greek Cypriots.

      Enclaved Greek Cypriots in the Karpas area

      Before 1974, the Karpas peninsula was predominently inhabited by
Greek Cypriots.  Their number fell from 22,000 in 1974 to only 506 in
1994.  They are mostly old people (45 % over 70 and half of these over
80) and there is no renewal of population.  There is a clear danger of
the Greek Cypriot population in that area becoming extinct within a few
years.

      The applicant Government have provided the following statistics:

20.7.74    20.8.74    20.10.74    1975    1976    1979    1983    1993    1994

22,000     16,372     14,577     9,308    6,393   1,533    940     524
   506

      They claim that whereas physical methods of expulsion were
prevalent from 1976 to 1979, they had become unnecessary for Turkey by
1980.  Since then, the Turkish forces have delegated their functions
to Turkish Cypriot "police" elements, a special plain-clothes "police"
unit being responsible for surveillance of Greek Cypriots.  Allegedly,
many of the methods of harassment earlier employed continue.  The
applicant Government request the Commission to make a special finding
concerning the inhuman methods used to force the remaining Greek
Cypriot inhabitants to leave their homes and seek refuge in the area
controlled by the Government of Cyprus, and which are described as
"ethnic cleansing".  These practices include the following measures:

-     Enclaved Greek Cypriots are not allowed to leave their villages
without special permission from the local "police" elements.  Such
permission is rarely given and only subject to restrictive conditions
such as reporting to the "police". For example, permission to visit
Famagusta is only given for purposes of receiving medical attention;
it involves four attendances at "police stations" on the day of the
visit (in addition to two earlier visits for applying and receiving
permission to travel).  Similarly, persons granted special permission
to visit the Government-controlled area are required to notify the
"police" at their home villages on leaving and on re-arrival.  Such
"temporary transfer" requires giving 15 days notice in writing to the
local "police" elements.  Travel can only occur once weekly in a
specially designated bus.  Apart from that Greek Cypriot (and Turkish
Cypriot) residents of the occupied area may apply for "family meetings"
in the presence of UNFICYP in the Ledra Palace Hotel, a crossing point
in Nicosia.  They can also receive short daily visits from Greek
Cypriots residing abroad.  Permission is not given for transfer from
one village to another, thus preventing the small numbers of isolated
Greek Cypriots from forming larger communities and supporting each
other.  Moreover, enclaved Greek Cypriots are not freely permitted to
visit their fields and graze their animals.  They are confined to a
very small area in the immediate vicinity of their particular villages.

-     Greek Cypriot doctors are not allowed to visit enclaved Greek
Cypriots, and the local medical facilities are poor; sometimes the
"police" refuse UNFICYP permission to evacuate Greek Cypriots for
urgent specialist medical treatment in the Government-controlled area.
This is particularly grave having regard to the advanced age of many
ill persons.

-     Greek Cypriots are forbidden to communicate with UNFICYP except
in the presence of Turks.  UNFICYP Humanitarian Branch personnel
visiting Greek Cypriots are escorted by Turkish Cypriot "police".
UNFICYP must itself obtain prior permission for visits.  Visits are
closely watched by Turkish Cypriot "police" and speech in the presence
of such "police" is constrained.  Failure to observe these restrictions
results in arrest and sometimes beating.  Communications between
enclaved Greek Cypriots and their relatives in the Government-
controlled area are permitted only by means of messages censored by
Turkish military authorities and then delivered by UNFICYP.  Such
messages are often destroyed and not handed to UNFICYP for delivery.
Telephones are available to Greek Cypriots only in Turkish Cypriot
local "police stations" and calls are only possible with "police"
permission and "police" presence.  Persons who have exceptionally
obtained permission for a "temporary transfer" to visit the Government-
controlled area are searched and letters carried by them for relatives
or other enclaved persons are seized.  Greek Cypriot newspapers in
Greek language are not permitted to circulate in the Turkish-occupied
area and copies brought back by visitors of the Government-controlled
area are confiscated.  Books are also confiscated.

-     Greek Cypriots are not permitted freely to transact commercial
transactions or to carry on any profession, trade or business in the
occupied area and thus to earn a living.  They have to rely mainly on
charity and food and financial support sent to them by the Cyprus
Government through UNFICYP.  Fishermen are only permitted to line-fish
from the shore and may not use their boats.

-     As to educational facilities for Greek Cypriots in northern
Cyprus, the situation is particularly grave.  There remain only two
elementary schools and only three Greek Cypriot teachers.  All Greek
Cypriot secondary schools had to be closed.  Teachers from the
Government-controlled area are not permitted to render services in the
occupied area.  Much of the equipment of the remaining elementary
schools has been confiscated, school books are censored or banned.
Children at the age of 12 have to make the choice whether to leave
northern Cyprus in order to obtain secondary education or stay with
their parents without receiving secondary education.  40 % of the
parents opt for the latter solution because the Turkish authorities
permit secondary school children to return to visit their parents only
in the Christmas, Easter and summer vacations.  Once boys reach the age
of 16 and girls that of 18, they are not allowed at all to return to
the occupied area or to visit their parents.

-     The manifestation of their religion by enclaved Greek Cypriots
is restricted by the prohibition on replacement of Greek Cypriot
priests of whom only two remain in the occupied area.  Services at the
major church and shrine of pilgrimage in the Karpas peninsula are
prohibited except on 15 August and 30 November of each year.
Attendance of funeral services is restricted to close relatives living
in the Government-controlled area, remoter relatives and friends not
being given permission.

-     Cases continue of direct physical violence or death threats
against Greek Cypriots.  Breaking into houses and damage to property
occur on such a scale that people fear leaving their homes unattended.
Cases of psychological pressure are frequent, such as repeated knocking
on doors and stoning of houses at night time.  The fear of harassment
suffered by Greek Cypriots has been intensified by the large-scale
systematic settlement of colonists from the Turkish mainland which has
created an alien, often hostile and threatening environment.  In the
remaining six villages where Greek Cypriots still live, Turkish
settlers greatly outnumber the Greek Cypriot residents.  It is alleged
that no effective remedy exists for Greek Cypriots who wish to complain
about assaults and robberies.  Fears of victimisation prevent such
complaints and the naming of witnesses.  The applicant Government refer
in particular to a report of 8 April 1994 by the UNFICYP Chief
Humanitarian Officer which explains the reasons why Greek Cypriots are
reluctant to report crimes committed against them.

-     The far-reaching restrictions which affect most aspects of the
daily life and civil rights of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus are
arbitrary and not established or regulated by law or controlled by the
courts.  The applicant Government again refer to the above report by
the UNFICYP Chief Humanitarian Officer.

-     Greek Cypriots who succumb to the fierce pressures to leave the
occupied area include persons of both sexes and all ages.  When they
leave their homes are allocated to settlers from Turkey.  Once they
have left, they may not change their minds and are prevented by the
Turkish forces from returning to their homes.  There are some limited
exceptions for temporary reunion of families, but permanent reunion
byway of return of Greek Cypriot family members to their parents in the
Karpas or by regular or even intermittent visits is denied.  Greek
Cypriots who have once left the Karpas are under no circumstances
permitted to return to reside there.


      Turkish settlers

      The applicant Government submit that the grave situation in
Cyprus has been intensified by the increased and systematic settlement
of colonists from the Turkish mainland.  They refer to a Report on the
Demographic Structure of the Cypriot Communities, by Mr. A. Cuco,
Rapporteur to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, published on
27 April 1992, in which it was inter alia stated that "most of the
settlers were transferred to Cyprus as the result of a decision of the
Turkish authorities" and that "the aim of the Turkish-Cypriot
administration's policy regarding the Turkish migrants has been to
encourage their permanent settlement on the island".  The applicant
Government submit that since the compilation of the Cuco Report,
Turkish settlement has continued, the process being accelerated in
1991, to a degree that even Turkish Cypriot politicians took exception.
They refer to statements of the Secretary General of the Republican
Turkish Party, Mr. Soyer, who declared in May 1993 that "Turkish
Cypriots are face to face with annihilation" and that "when the
occupied area opened to the settlers without any control, the Turkish
Cypriots started feeling aliens in their own country".  A similar
statement was also made by the leader of the same party, Mr. Özgür, in
August 1993.  Reference has further been made to a number of critical
comments in the Turkish Cypriot press.

      The new measures adopted since 1991 were the following:

-     After 2 September 1991, no passports were demanded to be shown
for entry by Turkish citizens to the TRNC.  They could enter with
Turkish identity cards only.  From October 1992 no "entry cards" were
required for Turkish citizens.

-     By a Turkish law of 17 November 1992 persons with a "work permit"
in the TRNC were exempted from the military draft in Turkey, and this
despite the armed conflict in South East Turkey and Turkey's need of
army personnel for this purpose.  In the applicant Government's view
this indicates the high priority which Turkey gives to the settler
programme.

      Turkey's direct involvement is also shown by Turkey's declared
policy to "balance", i.e. to achieve the parity of population numbers
of Turks and Greek Cypriots in the island of Cyprus.  The applicant
Government refer to statements in this sense made by Turkey's State
Minister for Cyprus Affairs, Mr. Kilercioglu, in August 1992, by TRNC
"Prime Minister", Mr. Eroglu, in September 1993, and by "the
compulsorily retired 'Director of Registration'", Mr. Adali, in
December 1994.  In this context, it is also alleged that Turkey refused
to allow the TRNC to import 5000 Romanian and Bulgarian migratory
workers, instead insisting on the importation of Anatolians.  Newspaper
articles revealed that 5000 were recruited by the Employment Agency of
Konya in December 1992, and that an agreement was reached between
Turkey and the TRNC in January 1993 to meet an immediate demand for
2000 Turkish guest workers.

      It is further alleged  that Turkey is directly involved in the
grant of TRNC "citizenship" to settlers.  Turkish citizens need
permission of the Turkish Ministry of the Interior to acquire foreign
citizenship.  According to an article of the Turkish Cypriot newspaper
"Yenicag" of 20 September 1993 Turkey ordered the TRNC administration
not to grant "citizenship" to anybody without such permission, and to
exclude Kurds.  Reference was also made to a practice of substitution
in the official TRNC papers of a northern Cypriot birthplace for that
in mainland Turkey.  Other newspaper articles reported about the large
numbers of settlers who were granted "citizenship": during an election
period in 1993, 5000 "citizenships" were offered by a change in the
citizenship law, apparently to illegal workers; 250 new identity cards
were being issued every day; voter registration continued rapidly to
expand also in 1994, the number of voters increased by 4800 in
5 months; 2281 Turkish settlers were granted "citizenship" in 1994
according to the TRNC "Minister of the Interior".

      According to the applicant Government, Turkey and the TRNC
conceal the number of settlers and refuse to conduct a census as
requested by the Turkish Cypriot political opposition, the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the UN Security
Council.  For this reason it is difficult to provide statistics.
According to estimates prepared by the Republic of Cyprus Department
of Statistics and Research, the number of settlers ranged between
65,500 and 70,600 at the end of 1990, between 69,000 and 87,000 at the
end of 1992, and between 73,700 and 92,100 at the end of 1993.  Some
sources speak of 100,000 settlers.  To these must be added 30,000 or
more Turkish army personnel and their families and 12,000 illegal
Turkish workers, so that the total number of mainland Turks (between
115,000 and 135,000) already outnumbers that of Turkish Cypriots
(between 60,000 and 100,000).  There is a strong emigration of Turkish
Cypriots to the United Kingdom, according to one source a total of
57,000 having left the island in the period between 1974 and 1993.

      The applicant Government allege that in connection with the
settlement policy the nature of Greek Cypriot homes is changed.
Measures to "turkicise" the area include the change of all place names
and public signs from Greek to Turkish to eliminate evidence of Greek
culture and language and the deliberate turning of churches into
mosques.  In addition, these measures also adversely affect Turkish
Cypriots, as evidenced by the Turkish Cypriot press.  The demographic
changes are intensified by measures for the allocation of Greek Cypriot
property to the settlers.

      The treatment of the possessions of displaced Greek Cypriots

      The applicant Government submit that the situation concerning the
property of the 170,000 Greek Cypriots displaced from the north remains
the same as before, they continue to be prevented from returning to
their possessions and getting access to it for any purpose, their
titles being denied.  This applies to both movable and immovable
property.

      As regards movable property, the applicant Government refer to
the severing and harvesting of agricultural produce from the land
belonging to Greek Cypriots by labourers sent from Turkey to northern
Cyprus, and its commercialisation by Turkish companies, in particular
those of Mr. Asil Nadir, which, "acting on invitation in the early
1980s from the Turkish Government", became responsible for most of the
exploitation of citrus orchards in the areas of Morphou and Lefka.
Following a judgment of the European Court of Justice in July 1994,
holding that lemons and potatoes cannot be imported from the TRNC into
the European Community, because they are not supported by lawful
movement and phytosanitary certificates, Turkey in January 1995 decided
to remove all restrictions on import from northern Cyprus and to use
Mersin as the export gate for this area.  In this way agricultural
produce from northern Cyprus is since November 1994 being exported to
third countries accompanied by Turkish certificates.

      Other movable property was also taken into official Turkish
custody.  Thus 70 tons of Greek and English books, magazines and
brochures collected from Famagusta were stored in a warehouse.  An
attempt to dispose of this material by auction in October 1994 was
stopped by some Turkish Cypriot politicians.

      Furthermore, there has been interference with movable property
of the Church of Cyprus, such as relics, icons, church furniture and
mosaics severable from the fabric left behind in northern Cyprus. The
Church has not been permitted to safeguard its treasures, by having
access to guard, remove or restore them.  There continues to be wanton
destruction, theft by individuals, and official connivance in the
export for the international sale of such items.  The applicant
Government have submitted a documentation of such acts covering a
period of three years preceding September 1994.  They also refer to an
incident concerning the 6th century mosaics from the apsis of the
church of Kanakaria.  By coincidence, the Church of Cyprus learnt in
November 1979 that the mosaics had been removed.  The Cypriot
Government sought the assistance of UNESCO and in the late 1980s it was
discovered that Turkish, Dutch and American dealers were selling four
of these mosaics, valued at 1,5 million US $.  They were ultimately
restored to the Church of Cyprus by a judgment of 8 August 1989 given
by the US District Court (Indianapolis Division).  The Turkish dealer
returned two more of the mosaics, but 10 remain missing.  The applicant
Government describe this incident as symptomatic.  They also mention
another recent incident where a German tourist to northern Cyprus
brought to light the theft of an icon.

      As to the immovable property left behind by Greek Cypriots in
northern Cyprus, the applicant Government describe the Turkish
authorities' policy as a "systematic and continuing process" effected
in various stages: (i) unlawful dispossession of the Greek Cypriot
owners by their eviction from the occupied area; (ii) de facto
exclusion of the owners by the Turkish forces preventing them from
returning to their homes and properties; (iii) reduction into Turkish
possession, effected by Turkish State personnel or subsequently
authorised bodies, or toleration of individuals' unlawful occupation
and possession without the Turkish authorities taking counter-action;
(iv) purported enactment of "law" by the administrative apparatus
operating in the Turkish occupied area in order to "legalise" takings
and to facilitate "land allocation"; (v) "amendments" to the "law" to
enable grant of "title" especially to Turkish settlers, and (vi)
continuing implementation of such "laws" by land "allocation" and
"grant of title".

      The so-called "legalisation process" started in 1975 when the
"Assembly of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" purported to enact
a "Law to consolidate and amend the Law in respect of the Control,
Custody and Administration of Immovable Properties belonging to Aliens
and Abandoned in the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus" (No. 32/1975).
This law qualified the Greek Cypriot displaced persons as "aliens".

      It was followed in 1977 by a "Law for Rehabilitation, Land
Allocation and Equivalent Property" (No. 41/1977) with two main policy
objectives: (i) to concentrate ownership of all Greek Cypriot property
in northern Cyprus in the hands of the "Federated State", a large area
being kept as "State" land, part of it being allocated to Turkish
Cypriots displaced from the south of Cyprus, and the last part being
reserved for allocation to settlers from Anatolia; (ii) to concentrate
in the hands of the "Federated State" all Turkish-Cypriot owned land
in the Government-controlled area, this being effected by establishing
a value-points system by which Turkish Cypriots surrendered their land
there to the "Federated State" by signing a "renunciation certificate"
upon obtaining Greek-Cypriot owned land in the occupied area.
Allegedly, this law was also used to benefit members of the Turkish
Cypriot political hierarchy, it was administered corruptly and used as
a vehicle for rich Turks and protegees of the Turkish Government,
including even Turkish Generals, to buy "value points" from Turkish
Cypriot displaced persons.

      Subsequently, there was a continuing process of "amending" the
law in order to be able to grant "title", rather than mere physical
possession, to Turkish settlers (amending laws 5/1981, 27/1982,
23/1985, 3/1988, 12/1989 - changing the title of the law into "Law for
Settlement and Distribution of Land and Property of Equivalent Value"
- 44/1990 and 24/1991).  According to the applicant Government, these
amendments pursued fresh policy aims, namely (i) to clarify (and
extend) the categories of persons "entitled"; (ii) to enable tourist
development (by "leasing" areas for this purpose, in particular to Mr.
Asil Nadir's company); (iii) to make it feasible for mortgages to be
obtainable by "certificate" holders; (iv) to allow land to be bought
by Turkish settlers and persons who did not surrender their property
in the Government-controlled area, and (iv) to allow the grant of
"title" rather than "infinitive possession" as earlier provided.

      The law now accords a claim to be issued "deeds of title" to the
following categories of persons: (i) Turkish Cypriots who have left
property in the Government-controlled area; (ii) "War veterans"
(Turkish army officers illegally seconded to Cyprus in 1958-59 or 1963-
67); (iii) Members of the "Turkish Peace Force" (the 1974 Turkish army
of invasion); (iv) Turkish army personnel who served in Cyprus after
the 1974 invasion and (v) persons who had settled by May 1983 in the
occupied area.  Post-May 1983 Turkish settlers may be "allocated"
custody of land on different criteria and conditions.

      On the pretext that there had been "a population exchange" which
ought to be followed by a "property exchange", "certificates of
definite possession" started to be issued to Turkish Cypriots as from
20 December 1982.  The holders of such certificates were permitted to
burden the property with mortgage.  However, further implementation of
the law was not pursued at that time, due to the introduction of the
last inter-State application by Cyprus against Turkey.  However, by
mid-1986 international pressures on Turkey regarding Cyprus had eased
and Turkey required full implementation of the law in order to satisfy
the promises which had been made in Turkey to intending settlers that
they would be given ownership of land in the occupied area.  Thus the
Economic Co-operation Protocol of 1986 provided that "the laws for the
distribution of equivalent property shall be reviewed so that a just
distribution shall be provided and the criteria for the allocation of
property shall be reviewed".     Nevertheless, because of international
pressure the law had still not been fully implemented by 1990.  In
particular, Turkish settlers, "war veterans" and persons who had
participated in the "Peace Operation" were not given "titles".  A
document of principles signed by the Prime Minister of Turkey on 25
July 1990 stipulated that "taking into consideration the importance and
the value of the right to property, the Turkish Republic shall provide
all necessary support to speed up the application of the Settlement,
Rehabilitation and Equivalent Property Law and to complete the
necessary legal arrangements in 1990".  The subsequent 1991 amendment
of the law distinguished between "compensation rights" for land vacated
in the Government-controlled area, such rights going to Turkish
Cypriots, and "allotment rights" for Turkish settlers.  According to
a statement of the TRNC "Housing Minister", Mr. Yumuk, of February 1991
"title deeds" would be issued to all "entitled" to them and all TRNC
"citizens" would become "legal owners" of such property.  According to
a further statement by Mr. Yumuk of March 1992, all land not kept by
the TRNC State for its own purposes was to be disposed of by grant of
these rights, 53 % being allocated to persons who had left property in
the south and 47 % to settlers.

      Nevertheless, the law was still only partly implemented, most of
the issued deeds going to Turkish Cypriots.  The Economic Co-operation
Protocol of 1992 therefore again provided that the TRNC authorities
"will try to complete implementation" of the law concerned and that the
Republic of Turkey "will provide necessary assistance and support".
However, due to international pressure and alleged "legal
difficulties", "title deeds" were still not issued to Turkish "war
veterans" and settlers.  According to the Turkish Cypriot press it was
reported in February 1994 that Turkey, as an aspect of the "support"
mentioned in the 1992 Protocol, would now provide money to Turkish "war
veterans" and settlers in order to enable them to purchase land. TRNC
"Prime Minister" Atun then explained that Turkey had only discussed the
question of "title deeds" being used for mortgages to secure bank
loans.

      The applicant Government also refer to provisions of the TRNC
"Constitution" of 1985 (Article 159 read in conjunction with Articles
36(5) and 164) according to which Greek Cypriot property was
expropriated on the ground that it had been found "abandoned" on
13 February 1975 in the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus", that it
was "described by law" as "abandoned", or that the title deeds belong
to "non-citizens" of the TRNC.  They submit that the acts concerned
were declared illegal and invalid by the UN Security Council and that
accordingly the purported "expropriation" is void in international law
and in the municipal law of the Republic of Cyprus.  Although Turkey
and her local administrative apparatus have sought to throw a cloak of
legality over the process of de facto expropriation, they have not
achieved their objective of obtaining "legality".  It is contended that
there has not yet been a "final taking" of most Greek Cypriot property
by way of lawful issue of new "title deeds", despite repeated threats
to do so.  The international community was even from time to time
assured that Greek Cypriot ownership rights remained, e.g. in a
statement of Mr. Denktash to the UN Secretary General in 1987 according
to which "no actual transfer of ownership had taken place".
Nevertheless, TRNC "Prime Minister" Eroglu stated in 1993 that in his
administration 10,000 "title deeds" had been issued and a UN Report of
December 1994 mentions that 17,000 "title deeds" were about to be
issued.  As the Turkish Cypriot press reported in February 1995, a new
amendment bill was being prepared which would allow the grant of "clean
title deeds", i.e. unrestricted ownership, to 17,000 families.  The
President of the Republic of Cyprus on 27 February 1995 addressed the
UN Secretary General informing him of the threat of this system being
introduced in northern Cyprus.

      The applicant Government refer to a number of examples of Greek
Cypriot property affected by specific measures.  They include

-     the situation in Varosha where the property of 15,130 Greek
      Cypriots has been left uninhabited for 20 years (see above);

-     the transfer of all Church-owned land to Evkaf, the Moslem
      religious trust, by a decision of the "Government of the Turkish
      Federated State of Cyprus" in 1975;

-     the subdivision of land at Ayios Epiktitos and its advertisement
      for sale in plots;

-     the development of land for commercial profit, in particular for
      touristic purposes, including the construction of hotel
      apartments offered for sale to foreigners; exploitation of hotels
      by a tourism organisation controlled by mainland Turkish
      companies; licencing of the repair and alteration of hotels;
      licencing of the construction of a touristic village on hitherto
      unconstructed land; leasing of land for development; and
      exploitation of properties by Turkish business establishment and
      persons closely associated with Turkey's political and banking
      hierarchy.

      The applicant Government submit that the Greek Cypriot owners are
not given any compensation or remedy for the continuing deprivation of
their property.

      Turkish Cypriots

      The applicant Government submit that the Turkish armed forces
also restrict the freedom of movement of Turkish Cypriots.  It is
contended that no such restrictions are being applied by the
authorities of the Republic of Cyprus.  As a consequence, Turkish
Cypriots are denied access to the property which they have left behind
in the Government-controlled area, nor can they attend meetings with
Greek Cypriots in the occupied area, in the buffer zone, or in the
Government-controlled area, all this requiring permission which is
often refused and sometimes withdrawn after permission has been
granted.  The case of Dr. Ahmed Cavit An has been mentioned. He was on
107 occasions refused permission to leave northern Cyprus for the
Government-controlled area.  Dr. Cavit has introduced an individual
application to the Commission complaining of these restrictions.
Allegedly, he was told that he could never again leave the northern
area and his social contacts there were strangled.

      Turkish Cypriots are also affected by the prohibition on the
circulation of Greek language newspapers in northern Cyprus and by the
fact that Article 156 of the TRNC "Constitution" confers extensive
jurisdiction over civilians on "military courts".

      The Turkish Cypriot gypsy community is allegedly discriminated
against.  Some 70 gypsy families (over 300 persons) sought asylum in
the United Kingdom in 1994, alleging that they had no human rights in
the occupied area and were treated as second class citizens.  They
embarked on a Turkish Airlines flight to London, but the flight stopped
at Istanbul. The gypsies were severely beaten by the Turkish police and
returned to northern Cyprus. They eventually managed to leave and
arrived in London in September 1994, where they sought asylum.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant Government allege violations of Articles 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Convention, of Articles 1, 2 and
3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and of Articles 14 and 17 of the
Convention in conjunction with all these Articles.

      As to Article 1, it is submitted that Turkey fails to secure
Convention rights by its agents participating in, assenting to,
acquiescing in, or tolerating the violation of these rights, and by
lack of diligence in taking action to prevent, stop or remedy such
violations.

      The applicant Government also allege a violation of Article 32
para. 4 of the Convention by Turkey's failure to put an end to the
violations of the Convention established in the Commission's Report on
Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, as requested in the Committee
of Ministers decision in that case.  In the applicant Government's
submission this decision is binding on Turkey, the only State which the
Commission had found to have committed violations of the Convention.

      As to the violation of specific Convention guarantees, the
applicant Government invoke the following provisions:

1.    Regarding the Greek Cypriot missing persons, it is submitted that
if they should still be in Turkish custody 20 years after the cessation
of hostilities, this would be a grave breach of Article 5 of the
Convention and also a form of slavery or servitude contrary to Article
4 of the Convention.  The consistent failure of Turkey to provide
information on the fate of these persons to their relatives allegedly
constitutes a grave breach of Articles 3 (inhuman treatment), 8
(respect for family life) and 10 of the Convention (right to receive
information).

2.    Regarding the Greek Cypriot displaced persons, the applicant
Government, relying on the Commission's Reports concerning the earlier
inter-State cases, submit that there is now a gravely aggravated
violation of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of
the Convention by the continued and consistent refusal to allow
displaced Greek Cypriots to return to their families in northern
Cyprus.  The continued refusal to allow the return to their homes
allegedly constitutes a further violation of Article 8, the concept of
"home" in that provision extending to the human and  natural
environment and conditions of life surrounding the buildings and
localities concerned.  In this context the applicant Government refer
to the measures to change the nature of Greek Cypriot homes in northern
Cyprus by the organised settlement of mainland Turks, the "turcisation"
of the area and the elimination of all traces of Greek culture.  The
continuing refusal to allow the return of displaced Greek Cypriots to
the northern area is not just a question of the right to liberty of
movement as guaranteed by Protocol No. 4 (which Turkey has not
ratified).  As it is specifically designed to prevent Greek Cypriot
owners from having access to, from using and from enjoying their
property in the northern area, it also amounts to continuing violations
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, intensified by the consistent pattern
of interferences carried out by stages, the allocation of the property
in question to Turkish Cypriots and settlers, the attempts for the
legalisation of the de facto expropriation and for the eventual
deprivation of Greek Cypriot titles.  The applicant Government also
emphasise that the Greek Cypriot owners were not given any compensation
and no remedies against the deprivation of their possessions and their
exploitation under Turkish authority.  Any remedies which may be
available in domestic courts in Turkey or in northern Cyprus cannot be
considered as practicable and normally functioning in respect of
displaced Greek Cypriots who are denied entry to that area and are
treated as "aliens" under the TRNC "Constitution", which further
regards their properties as "abandoned".  The courts, being policy-
bound to implement measures by the Turkish authorities, or working
under the TRNC "Constitution", cannot be impartial or provide an
effective remedy under such circumstances.  The applicant Government
therefore also allege a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

      They further submit that the continued refusal to allow displaced
Greek Cypriots to return to their homes and families in the northern
part of Cyprus, and the continued deprivation of their possessions
located in this area are discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of
the Convention.

      It is finally alleged that displaced Greek Cypriots are deprived
of their right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to be able to vote in
free elections under conditions which will ensure the free expression
of the will of the people in the choice of the legislature.  While they
can vote in the Republic of Cyprus, they are being prevented from
effectively enjoying freely elected representatives in the Cyprus
legislature in respect of the northern territory.  The deputies elected
in the Republic of Cyprus in respect of this territory cannot get
access to it and are prevented from legislating effectively in respect
of that area.

3.    As regards enclaved Greek Cypriots in the Karpas area, the
applicant Government submit in the first place that the combination of
restrictions and fierce pressures placed on them, having regard to the
advanced age of many of the victims and the consistent pattern of
action against them, amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment within
the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.  They contend that this
treatment is deliberately inflicted on the persons in question with a
view to making them leave the area.  The Commission is specifically
asked to make a finding on the inhuman methods of coercion used for
this purpose.  The Turkish conduct in its totality should be examined
under Article 3 notwithstanding that various aspects of it also fall
to be considered under other provisions of the Convention.

      In this respect, the applicant Government further allege breaches
of the following Convention articles : Article 2 (denying the protection
of life to enclaved persons in urgent need of medical treatment);
Article 5 (threat to individual Greek Cypriots' security of person and
absence of official Turkish action to prevent this); Article 8
(interference with the right to respect for private life, family life,
home and correspondence); Article 9 (freedom of religion); Article 10
(freedom to receive and impart information and ideas); Article 11
(restrictions on freedom of association, in particular between the
various groups of enclaved persons and between enclaved persons and
Greek Cypriots in the Government-controlled area); Article 13 (failure
to provide effective remedies); Article 14 (Convention rights not being
secured to Greek Cypriots without discrimination, the violation of
their rights occurring on grounds of their race, language, religion,
national origin or status as Greek Cypriots or Maronites, the latter
being subjected to somewhat less harsh treatment); Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (deprivation of possessions and interference with
peaceful enjoyment of possessions); Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (denial
of secondary education and disrespect for parents' right to ensure
education in conformity with their religious and philosophical
convictions).  Also alleged is a breach of Article 6 of the Convention
by virtue of withholding a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal to Greek Cypriots whose civil rights have been
infringed.

4.    As regards Turkish Cypriots, the applicant Government submit that
they are also victims of violations of their right to the peaceful
enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since
the Turkish authorities do not allow their return to their properties
in the Government-controlled area; of Article 11 of the Convention,
because they are denied the right to freely associate with Greek
Cypriots either in the occupied area, the buffer zone or the
Government-controlled area; of Article 10 of the Convention, because
they too may be affected by the prohibition on the circulation of Greek
language newspapers in northern Cyprus; of Article 6 of the Convention,
by virtue of their being subjected to "military courts" which do not
ensure that charges against them are heard by an independent and
impartial tribunal; and of Article 5 of the Convention, because the
security of person of Turkish Cypriots is not ensured.  Concerning the
particular incident involving the Turkish Cypriot gypsies who sought
asylum in the United Kingdom, the applicant Government invoke Articles
3, 5 and 8 of the Convention.  It is also submitted that there are no
relevant or sufficient remedies available to the Turkish Cypriots
concerned as the interferences with their rights have been effected by
Turkish State policy, administrative practices and "law" incompatible
with the Convention.  Therefore it is claimed that Article 13 is
violated also in this respect.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced by the applicant Government on
22 November 1994 and registered on 24 November 1994.

      On 24 November 1994, the President of the Commission decided,
pursuant to Rule 45 para. 1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
that notice should be given to the respondent Government.  A time-limit
was fixed for the submission of written observations on the
admissibility of the application by the respondent Government, but this
time-limit subsequently became obsolete due to the delay in the
submission of the "Particulars" announced by the applicant Government
in the initial application.

      The Commission considered the state of proceedings on 28 November
1994.  On 5 December 1994 it agreed to fix 9 January 1995 as the time-
limit for the submission by the applicant Government of the
"Particulars" announced in the initial application.  The "Particulars"
with appendices were submitted by the applicant Government, after two
extensions of the time-limit, on 3 March 1995.

      On 8 March 1995, the "Particulars" were transmitted to the
respondent Government who were invited to submit observations in
writing on the admissibility of the application before 5 June 1995.
After two extensions of this time-limit, the respondent Government
submitted their observations, with appendices, on 10 July 1995.

      On 17 July 1995, the applicant Government were invited to submit
observations in reply before 16 October 1995.  After two extensions of
this time-limit, the applicant Government submitted observations,
together with extensive annexes, documentary exhibits, legal and other
appendices, on 19 December 1995.  They were received by the Commission
and transmitted to the respondent Government for information, on
3 January 1996.

      On 23 January 1996, the Commission considered the state of the
proceedings and decided to invite the parties to submit oral argument
at a hearing to be held at its session in June 1996.  Specific
questions were put to the parties to be dealt with at the hearing.

      In preparation of the hearing, the applicant Government submitted
additional documentary material on 11 and 13 June 1996.  The respondent
Government submitted a brief on 24 June and further documents on the
day of the hearing, 28 June 1996.

      At the hearing, the parties were represented as follows:

-     the applicant Government:
      Mr. Alecos MARKIDES, Attorney General of the Republic, Agent of
      the Government, assisted by the following Counsel: Mr. Ian
      BROWNLIE, Q.C., Member of the English Bar; Prof. Malcolm SHAW,
      University of Leicester, Barrister-at-Law; Mr. Polyvios POLIVIOU,
      Barrister-at-Law; Mrs. Stella Mary JOANNIDES, Council of the
      Republic; Dr. Claire PALLEY, Consultant to the Ministry of
      Foreign Affairs; and Mr. Nicos EMILIOU, Consultant to the
      Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

-     the respondent Government:
      Prof. Dr. Bakir ÇAGLAR, Agent of the Government, assisted by the
      following Counsel: Prof. Dr. Heribert GOLSONG, Mr. Zaim
      NECATIGIL, Mrs. Denis AKÇAY, Mr. Özer KORAY, Mr. Ertugrul APAKAN,
      Mr. Türel ÖZKAROL and Mr. Aydin AKAY.

THE LAW

      In their written and oral submissions the respondent Government
have raised a number of objections to the admissibility of the
application.  The Commission will examine these objections under the
following headings:

I.    Alleged lack of jurisdiction and responsibility of the respondent
      Government in respect of the acts complained of by the applicant
      Government;

II.   Alleged identity of the present application with the previous
      applications introduced by the applicant Government against the
      respondent Government, and alleged abuse of the Convention
      procedure by the applicant Government;

III.  Alleged special agreement to settle the dispute by means of other
      international procedures;

IV.   Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies and to comply with
      the six months rule.
I.    Alleged lack of jurisdiction and responsibility of the respondent
      Government in respect of the acts complained of by the applicant
      Government

      The respondent Government claim that the facts alleged do not
fall within their "jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1
(Art. 1) of the Convention.  They deny their responsibility for the
alleged violations, due to the absence of Turkish authority in northern
Cyprus and the omnipresence of Turkish Cypriot authority.

      The respondent Government argue that the questions of
"jurisdiction" and "imputability" belong in principle to the merits
stage of the procedure.  Nevertheless they have submitted a number of
arguments concerning these questions already at the admissibility
stage.

      In the respondent Government's submission, the concept of
"jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1 (Art. 1) of the
Convention does not necessarily coincide with the notion of
international State responsibility.  In their submission a distinction
must be made in this respect between the exercise of "territorial
jurisdiction" and "personal jurisdiction".  International
responsibility coincides with territorial jurisdiction where it is
exercised on a State's own national territory.  Responsibility under
the Convention for exercise of territorial jurisdiction outside the
national territory is exhaustively regulated in Article 63 (Art. 63)
of the Convention.  It presupposes a situation where the State
concerned is responsible for the international relations of the
territory in question and requires a special declaration to be made at
the time of ratification or later.  This will circumscribe the
applicability of the Convention ratione loci.  The respondent
Government refer by way of example to the Commission's decision
concerning an application against the United Kingdom which was rejected
on the ground that the facts complained of had occurred in Hong Kong
for which no declaration had been made under Article 63 (Art. 63)
(No. 16137/90, Dec. 12.3.90, D.R. 65 p. 330).

      Also in the decision on the admissibility of applications
Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 introduced by Cyprus against Turkey
(Dec. 26.5.75, D.R. 2 p. 125), the Commission did not state that
northern Cyprus was within the territorial jurisdiction of Turkey.
Rather, Turkey was held to be responsible on the basis of personal
jurisdiction exercised by her agents outside the national territory
over the alleged victims of violations of the Convention.  Quoting this
decision, the same approach was adopted by the Court in its Drozd and
Janousek v. France and Spain judgment of 26 June 1992 (Series A
no. 240).  The respondent Government submit that in the case of
exercise of such personal jurisdiction it is necessary in each case to
prove the causal link between the action of a State official and the
alleged facts.  It must be shown that at the time of the incriminated
acts the State authorities exercised effective control over the
victims, this being a question of fact.  In the respondent Government's
submission the applicant Government wrongly seek to be relieved from
having to demonstrate on a case by case basis the imputability to
Turkey of the various acts complained of, relying only on the allegedly
illegal presence of Turkish troops along the cease-fire line and
disregarding the fact that there is no global territorial jurisdiction
of Turkey in northern Cyprus.

      The respondent Government contend that there is no military
occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey, but rather that there has been
an evolution towards the creation of their own independent State by the
Turkish Cypriot community in exercise of their right to self-
determination.  In this respect, the respondent Government refer in
detail to the history of Cyprus since 1960 emphasising in particular:

      (i) the bi-communal character of the 1960 Constitution and the
obligation of Cyprus, under international treaty obligations guaranteed
by the signatories of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, to maintain her
independence, territorial integrity and the fundamental principles of
the Constitution;

      (ii) the alleged responsibility of the Greek Cypriot side for the
breakdown of the 1960 constitutional arrangements in 1963 and the
subsequent changing of basic principles of the Constitution;

      (iii) the allegedly intolerable situation of enclaved Turkish
Cypriots in the period between 1964 and 1974, which caused them to set
up their own administration as from December 1967;

      (iv) the fact that the Turkish intervention in July 1974 was
preceded by a coup d'Etat of Greek officers of the National Guard who
pursued the aim of unification of Cyprus with Greece (Enosis);

      (v) the contention that the Turkish military operation in 1974
was carried out in conformity with Article IV of the Treaty of
Guarantee to protect the right of Turkish Cypriots;

      (vi) the contention that the subsequent relocation of both the
Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot communities in separate parts of
the island was the result of agreements achieved in intercommunal talks
held in Vienna in July/August 1975, these agreements being fully
implemented on a voluntary basis under UN auspices, UN troops moving
into the newly established buffer zone;

      (vii) the alleged agreement achieved in 1977 and 1979 between the
Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot leaders for seeking a federal
solution on the basis of a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, a
concept which it is contended is still valid as a basic guideline for
the intercommunal talks;

      (viii) the contention that the establishment of the TRNC as an
independent State on 15 November 1983 was declared by the legitimate
representative body of the Turkish Cypriots in exercise of their right
to self-determination, and that it was not secession as the bi-communal
Republic of Cyprus had ceased to function due to the actions of the
Greek Cypriot side since 1963;

      (ix) the contention that the subsequent development of TRNC
institutions was legitimate and in line with democratic principles and
that it consolidated the statehood of the TRNC according to criteria
accepted in international law;

      (x) that despite the fact that it has not been recognised de iure
by any other State than Turkey, the TRNC exists de facto as an
independent State exercising all branches of State power on its
territory - the respondent Government invoke de facto recognition of
the TRNC by the courts of several States and the fact that Turkey has
recognised the TRNC de iure and does not claim for herself to exercise
power in that area;

      (xi) finally as regards the role of the Turkish forces in
northern Cyprus, the respondent Government claim that they are there
in a peace-keeping function at the request and with the consent of the
TRNC, that they act under the latter's authority and do not themselves
exercise governmental power.  It is claimed that their status is not
essentially different from that of Greek military forces in southern
Cyprus.

      The respondent Government therefore refute the applicant
Government's submission that Turkey exercises overall control and
jurisdiction in northern Cyprus and that this creates an "irrebuttable
presumption of Turkish control and responsibility".  The respondent
Government claim that already in its Reports concerning the earlier
inter-state cases the Commission qualified the finding as to Turkish
jurisdiction in northern Cyprus by limiting it to the border area.
They further observe that the alleged assumption of responsibility
cannot be irrebuttable, because the Commission examined whether the
particular acts complained of were in fact imputable to Turkey.

      This approach was also followed by the Commission in applications
Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89, Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v.
Turkey.  In its Report of 8 July 1993 the Commission again limited its
finding of Turkish responsibility to the border area due to "overall
control exercised by Turkish forces in that area".  However, the
Commission also found that the applicants' subsequent detention and
trial were not imputable to Turkey, thus accepting that there was no
control by Turkey over the prison administration or the administration
of justice by Turkish Cypriot authorities, and furthermore taking
cognizance of the law in force in the TRNC by finding that the
detention had been "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law".

      The applicant Government refute all these arguments.

      In their submission, the provisions of the Convention must be
applied having regard to the general principles of international law
concerning State responsibility.  Under these principles, it is a
sufficient condition for holding a State responsible under
international law if it exercises effective control over a given
territory.  In the applicant Government's view Turkey, as the State in
exclusive occupation and control of northern Cyprus, therefore is the
only international person legally accountable in international law for
events in the entire occupied area, including any violations of the
Convention.  Because of its overall control it has the physical ability
to impose its will on the area and its residents, and thus exercises
"jurisdiction" within the meaning of Article 1 (Art. 1) of the
Convention over all persons and property in that area.  The exercise
of jurisdiction creates an irrebuttable presumption of control and
responsibility.  The concept of "control" must be understood in a legal
context and it does not require the actual presence of Turkish armed
forces at the scene of a violation.

      In the applicant Government's submission Turkey cannot avoid her
legal responsibility by claiming that the acts complained of are
imputable to the TRNC.  The creation of local administrative structures
or "puppet institutions" in northern Cyprus has been sponsored by the
Turkish mainland authorities which in fact continue to control and
direct these institutions.  Their establishment has been declared
illegal and invalid by the UN Security Council and States have not
recognised, and are obliged not to recognise, the TRNC, which thus is
not capable of exercising any jurisdiction of its own.  Moreover, it
is claimed that Turkish armed forces are stationed throughout the
occupied area and that Turkish military courts exercise effective
authority over civilians.

      In support of their argument, the applicant Government rely in
particular on the Eur. Court HR Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary
Objections) judgment of 23 March 1995 (Series A no. 310) which in their
submission confirms the view that Turkey must be considered as
exercising effective control and thus jurisdiction within the meaning
of Article 1 (Art. 1) of the Convention, over the entire area of
northern Cyprus.  At the same time the applicant Government criticise
the approach adopted by the Commission in its Report concerning the
Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou case, where Turkey was not held
responsible for certain acts of the TRNC authorities.  They claim that
the Commission's approach in that case was based on wrong assumptions
concerning the legal status of the so-called "buffer zone" and the
relationship between the Turkish and the Turkish Cypriot authorities.

      The Commission agrees with the respondent Government that the
question as to Turkey's "jurisdiction" in northern Cyprus and its
responsibility under the Convention for the acts complained of must in
principle be determined at the merits stage of the proceedings.
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention, which permits the
Commission to reject applications inter alia on the ground that they
are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, does not apply
in respect of applications submitted under Article 24 (Art. 24) of the
Convention and accordingly cannot be applied either in such
applications where the respondent Government raise the objection that
particular complaints are incompatible with the Convention ratione loci
or ratione personae.  However, this cannot prevent the Commission from
establishing already at this preliminary stage, under general
principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by international
tribunals, whether it has any competence at all to deal with the matter
laid before it.

      In this respect, the Commission follows the approach adopted by
the Court in the Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections) judgment
of 23 March 1995. It will limit the examination to the question whether
its competence to examine the applicant Government's complaints is
excluded on the grounds that they concern matters which cannot fall
within the "jurisdiction" of the respondent Government (loc. cit., p.
23, para. 60), leaving open, at this stage, the question whether the
respondent Government is actually responsible under the Convention for
the acts which form the basis of the applicant Government's complaints
and the further question as to which are the principles that govern
State responsibility under the Convention in a situation like that
obtaining in the northern part of Cyprus.  The Commission's examination
will thus be limited to determining whether the matters complained of
by the applicant Government are capable of falling within the
"jurisdiction" of Turkey even though they occur outside her national
territory (ibid, para. 61).

      The Commission recalls that, although Article 1 (Art. 1) sets
limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of "jurisdiction"
under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the
High Contracting Parties.  In its above judgment, the Court quoted a
number of examples from its case-law and then continued, with regard
to the particular situation in the northern part of Cyprus:

      "Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention,
      the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise
      when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful
      or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area
      outside its national territory.  The obligation to secure,
      in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the
      Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it
      be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through
      a subordinate local administration." (loc. cit., p. 24,
      para. 62)

      The Commission notes that certain of the complaints submitted by
the applicant Government in the present case relate to the loss of
control of property by Greek Cypriots due to the presence of Turkish
troops in the northern part of Cyprus and the establishment there of
the TRNC, it being claimed that access to the property concerned is
being prevented by Turkish troops.  This situation is similar to that
in the Loizidou application where the Court held that the acts
complained of were capable of falling within Turkish "jurisdiction"
within the meaning of Article 1 (Art. 1) (loc. cit., p. 24, paras. 63-
64).  The Commission reaches the same conclusion concerning the above
complaints.

      The Commission has examined whether the various other complaints
submitted by the applicant Government in the present application are
also capable of falling within Turkey's jurisdiction in this sense.
While a definitive answer cannot be given regarding each particular
complaint at this stage, the Commission considers that, generally
speaking, the applicant Government have sufficiently demonstrated the
possibility of a direct or indirect involvement of Turkish authorities.
The Commission therefore does not find reasons to exclude at this stage
any part of the application on the ground that the acts complained of
are prima facie incapable of falling within Turkish jurisdiction within
the meaning of Article 1 (Art. 1).

      This finding does not in any way prejudge the questions to be
determined at the merits stage of the proceedings, namely whether the
matters complained of are actually imputable to Turkey and give rise
to her responsibility under the Convention.


II.   Alleged identity of the present application with the previous
      applications introduced by the applicant Government against the
      respondent Government, and alleged abuse of the Convention
      procedure by the applicant Government


      The respondent Government claim that the present application is
essentially a repetition of the previous applications Nos. 6780/74,
6950/75 and 8007/77.  Claimant and respondent are identical and the
alleged violations of the Convention are essentially the same as those
covered by application No. 8007/77.  The respondent Government contest
that there are "continuing violations " and claim that in reality the
applicant Government complain of the lasting consequences of
instantaneous acts which occurred a long time ago and which under the
Commission's case-law cannot as such give rise to new complaints.  The
acts or omissions complained of do not relate to new victims (e.g. no
further persons went missing, and the 170,000 displaced Greek Cypriots
and the separated families are the same as before) nor do they disclose
new information (e.g. the problem of Turkish settlers, the alleged
inhuman treatment of enclaved Greek Cypriots and the alleged violations
of the rights of Turkish Cypriots had all been included in the previous
application).  The Convention articles invoked are the same as in
application No. 8007/77, except for Articles 9, 10 and 11
(Art. 9, 10, 11) which were not cited in that case while the facts
raised under those articles had indeed been mentioned.  The only
apparently new allegation concerns the alleged violation of Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3), but in substance also this complaint had been
contained in the previous application when the applicant Government
complained of the autonomous State structure in northern Cyprus.  The
respondent Government moreover consider this apparent new allegation
as wholly misconceived and unsubstantiated, lacking the requirement of
a genuine allegation in the sense of Article 24 (Art. 24) of the
Convention.

      The respondent Government recall that an argument based on the
principle "ne bis in idem" had been submitted by them already in
application No. 8007/77, but had been rejected by the Commission.  They
nevertheless maintain that there should be a limit to repetitive
applications and, even allowing for a different treatment of State
applications in this respect, the Convention cannot be interpreted in
such a way as to make it possible for inter-State applications to be
brought ad infinitum.  In their view the limit was exhausted with
application No. 8007/77.

      The respondent Government further submit that since the
consideration of that case by the Commission the situation has changed
in that Turkey has in the meantime accepted the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court by making a declaration to that effect under Article 46
(Art. 46) of the Convention.  In this context, they submit that it is
inadmissible and contrary to basic principles of the administration of
justice that an attempt is now apparently being made by the applicant
Government to raise the same matters again with a view to eventually
bringing the case before the Court.  This, it is claimed, violates not
only a general principle of law to be found in all developed national
legal systems, but also the basic concept of the Convention itself.

      The principle in question is reflected in the Roman law adage
"electa una via non datur recursus ad alteram", in the French concept
of "procedural foreclosure", in the German and U.S. concepts of "claims
preclusion" and in the common law principle of "procedural preclusion"
or "collateral estoppel".  The respondent Government submit that
similarly the Convention system provides for two separate and mutually
exclusive channels for the final decision of any application under
Article 24 or 25 (Art. 24, 25) of the Convention, one before the
Committee of Ministers and the other before the Court.  There is no
link allowed between the two channels and their respective final
decision-making body.  Each decision made by either of these bodies is
a matter of "res iudicata" within the legal framework of the Convention
to the effect that neither body may reopen matters decided upon by the
other body.  The one cannot act as a court of appeal or revision over
the decisions of the other.

      In the present case, this must lead to the conclusion that the
application is incompatible with the supervisory system of the
Convention because the matters raised have already been dealt with in
the previous inter-State applications and are "res iudicata" after the
relevant decisions of the Committee of Ministers, Res. DH (79) 1 of 19
January 1979 concerning applications Nos. 6870/74 and 6950/75, and Res.
DH (92) 12 of 2 April 1992 concerning application No. 8007/77.  The
respondent Government consider that these resolutions made under
Article 32 (Art. 32) of the Convention have settled finally and with
binding effect with respect to other bodies within the Convention
system, the earlier cases introduced by the applicant Government, the
Committee of Ministers not agreeing with the Commission's opinion and
finding no violation by Turkey of any provisions of the Convention.

      In the respondent Government's opinion the applicant Government's
apparent attempt to have the above rulings of the Committee of
Ministers "revised" by the Court, also amounts to an abuse of the
Convention procedure.

      The applicant Government refute these arguments and claim that
they are entitled to complain of continuing violations in respect of
situations which have already been dealt with in the Commission's
earlier reports.  The continuing violations in question relate to a
different period not covered by these reports, and they are supported
by new facts which have occurred since the adoption of the last report
and which have led to an intensification and aggravation of the
violations in question.  It is further claimed that certain of the
complaints raised in the present application are entirely new.

      In the applicant Government's view there can be no question of
"res iudicata" as the alleged violations are continuing and the
decisions concerning the earlier cases produce no forward effect.  In
any event they claim that the Committee of Ministers' resolutions in
these earlier cases were not sufficiently specific to constitute
decisions with "res iudicata" effect; rather these resolutions must be
regarded as non-decisions.

      The Commission recalls its decision on the admissibility of the
previous inter-State application between the same parties (No. 8007/77,
Dec. 10.7.78, D.R. 13, p. 85) where it was confronted with similar
arguments of the respondent Government.  The Commission reiterates
that, having regard to the clear terms of Article 27 para. 1 (b)
(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, it cannot find that it is authorised
under the Convention to declare inadmissible an application filed under
Article 24 (Art. 24) by a High Contracting Party on the ground that it
is substantially the same as a previous inter-State application.  For
so doing would, in the Commission's view, imply an examination, though
preliminary, of the merits of the application - an examination which
in inter-State cases must be entirely reserved for the post-
admissibility stage (loc. cit., p. 155, para. 49).  This does not
exclude, however, that the Commission will have to consider at the
merits stage whether and, if so, to which extent the present inter-
State application is substantially the same as a previous one.  As the
Commission observed in its Report on the above application (No.
8007/77, Comm. Report 4.10.83, D.R. 72, p. 5), Article 27 para. 1 (b)
(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention reflects a basic legal principle of
procedure which in inter-State cases arises during the examination of
the merits.  It cannot be the Commission's task again to investigate
complaints already examined in a previous case, and a State cannot
therefore, except in specific circumstances, claim an interest to have
new findings made where the Commission has already adopted a Report
under Article 31 (Art. 31) of the Convention concerning the same matter
(loc. cit., p. 22, para. 56).

      The Commission therefore reserves the question whether and, if
so, to which extent the applicant Government can have a valid legal
interest in the determination of the alleged continuing violations of
the Convention insofar as they have already been dealt with in previous
Reports of the Commission.  The Commission notes, in this context, that
at least some of the complaints raised do not seem to be covered by
definitive findings in earlier Reports, and some others seem to concern
entirely new facts.

      As to the further argument of the respondent Government that the
Commission is precluded from examining the present application by
virtue of an alleged "res iudicata" effect of the Committee of
Ministers' decisions concerning the previous inter-State applications,
this could apply only to the extent that the subject matter of the
application is the same as that of the previous cases.  As stated
above, this is a question which can only be determined at the merits
stage of the proceedings.

      In any event, the Commission, having regard to the specific text
of the Committee of Ministers' Resolution DH (79) 1 concerning
Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, did not accept a similar
argument presented by the respondent Government in relation to
Application No. 8007/77 and confirmed the applicant Government's legal
interest in the determination of alleged continuing violations (Report
4.10.83, D.R. 72, p. 23, para. 62).  The same must apply in the present
case insofar as a precluding effect of the same Committee of Ministers'
Resolution is invoked.  As to any precluding effect attributed by the
respondent Government to the Committee of Ministers Resolution DH (92)
12 concerning Application No. 8007/77, the Commission notes that this
resolution merely authorised the publication of the Commission's
Report, without containing any findings as to violations of the
Convention. For this very reason there can be no "res iudicata" effect
of this decision.

      Insofar as the respondent Government claim that the applicant
Government, by raising the same complaints again, apparently want to
bring the matter before the European Court of Human Rights thereby
abusing the Convention procedure in a manner incompatible with the
structure of the Convention ("collateral estoppel"), the Commission
observes that this argument, again, presupposes a pronouncement on the
question whether the present application is identical to the previous
ones, a matter which can only be decided at the merits stage.  Apart
from that, the Commission does not find it appropriate to speculate
about the intentions of the parties concerning their further conduct
of the proceedings.  If in fact the applicant Government should decide
in the future to bring the case before the Court, it would be for the
latter to decide the question whether or not it is precluded from
examining the application on the grounds invoked by the respondent
Government.

      The Commission also recalls that the Convention itself does not
empower it to reject an application introduced under Article 24
(Art. 24) of the Convention as constituting an "abuse of the right of
petition", Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention being
applicable only to applications lodged under Article 25 (Art. 25).
Even if there should exist a general principle of law allowing the
Commission to reject an inter-State application as inadmissible on the
ground that it is manifestly abusive (cf. No. 8007/77, Dec. 3.10.78,
D.R. 13 p. 78, para. 56 at p. 156), the Commission does not find this
to be the case in the present application.

      For all these reasons, the respondent Government's above
objections to the admissibility of the application must be dismissed.


III.  Alleged special agreement to settle the dispute by means of other
      international procedures


      The respondent Government invoke Article 62 (Art. 62) of the
Convention and claim that there exists a "special agreement" within the
meaning of this provision by which the parties undertook to settle
their dispute within the framework of the United Nations.  In this
respect it is claimed that, in fact, all the matters raised by the
present application are directly or indirectly handled within the
United Nations, by the Secretary General acting under the direction of
the Security Council.  The Secretary General's mission of good offices
established by a Security Council resolution of March 1975 involved the
convening of the parties under new agreed procedures.  The 1977 and
1979 high-level agreements between the leaders of the two communities
laid the "common ground" for the subsequent intercommunal talks, the
Secretary General stating in his inaugural address of August 1980 that
both parties supported a federal solution of the constitutional aspect
and a bi-zonal solution of the territorial aspect of the Cyprus
problem.  The intercommunal talks are being conducted on an "equal
footing" between the two communities with the objective of elaborating
a new constitution for the state of Cyprus on a federal, bi-communal
and bi-zonal basis.  The Secretary General of the United Nations has
repeatedly stressed the importance of the intercommunal talks as the
best available method for pursuing the negotiating process, and the
basic principles proposed by the Secretary General as the basis for
these negotiations have been accepted by the parties.

      The respondent Government further observe that both parties are
members of the UN Security Council and that they have consistently
voted since 1974 for the involvement of the United Nations in finding
a peaceful solution.  The Security Council acts under Chapter VI of the
UN Charter, which implies as an essential ingredient the agreement of
all parties concerned, i.e. no decision can be imposed on any of the
parties against its will.  It is further submitted that while the UN
efforts are directed immediately to an understanding between the Greek
Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities, they are also labelled to
include three other concerned parties, namely Greece, the United
Kingdom and Turkey.  Thus, all steps taken within the United Nations
have the agreement of the five concerned parties, including the
applicant Government.

      In the respondent Government's submission the procedures laid out
by the Security Council for the intercommunal talks amount to a
"special agreement" as provided for in Article 62 (Art. 62) of the
Convention.  There is a mutual binding commitment within the meaning
of this provision, if not in the shape of a formal agreement then at
least in that of an implied agreement or a set of concordant unilateral
declarations having the effect of a mutual agreement.

      The relevance of the UN Security Council's efforts was
sufficiently underscored, for identical issues of alleged human rights
violations, by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in its
resolutions on the previous inter-State cases.  The Committee of
Ministers was fully aware of the relevance of the intercommunal talks
when it expressed the conviction "that the enduring protection of human
rights in Cyprus can only be brought about through the re-establishment
of peace and confidence between the two communities and that
intercommunal talks constitute the appropriate framework for reaching
a solution of the dispute" (Res. DH(79)1, loc.cit.).  The respondent
Government point out that the Committee of Ministers strongly urged the
parties to resume intercommunal talks under the auspices of the UN
Secretary General and that more recently the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe also urged the political leaders of both
communities to accept the proposals of the Secretary General, proposals
which include regulation of fundamental rights such as freedom of
movement, freedom of settlement and rights of property.

      The respondent Government state that they encourage an early
negotiated settlement on this basis.  They consider that any attempt
by the Greek Cypriot side to resort to international and regional
forums is bound to prejudice the intercommunal talks and that therefore
the applicant Government should be estopped from reneging on the agreed
principles that form the basis of these talks.

       As regards the activities of the Committee on Missing Persons,
the respondent Government recall the agreement on the terms of
reference for the establishment of this Committee (1981), on the rules
of procedure (1984), on the guidelines for investigations (1995) and
the criteria of the UN Secretary General which have been accepted by
both sides.  They claim that the activities of the Committee were
delayed by procedural difficulties for which the Greek Cypriot side was
responsible, because until 1994 they submitted only 548 cases for
investigation and refused to submit further cases.  These difficulties
have now been overcome, the Greek Cypriot side having submitted all
their cases by December 1995, the number of these cases now being
reduced to 1493.  The respondent Government submit that therefore an
adequate and exclusive agreed forum exists to examine the question of
missing persons, and that the mechanism established in this context
also amounts to a special agreement under Article 62 (Art. 62) of the
Convention.

      The applicant Government deny that there is a special agreement
under Article 62 (Art. 62) of the Convention by which they undertook
to deal with the matters raised in the application exclusively within
the framework of the United Nations. In their submission the respondent
Government distort the meaning of Article 62 (Art. 62). This provision
has no application to procedures which are not by way of petition, such
as political negotiations (the intercommunal talks) or humanitarian
activities (the Committee on Missing Persons). Also, the parties to the
intercommunal talks and to the Committee on Missing Persons are
different from the parties to the present application: they only
concern the two Cypriot communities and do not involve Turkey.
Moreover, neither the intercommunal talks, with the objective of
reaching a political settlement of the Cyprus problem, nor the
activities of the Committee on Missing Persons, with the objective of
ascertaining the fate of missing persons, concern a dispute arising out
of the interpretation or application of the Convention. Finally, the
applicant Government submit that Article 62 (Art. 62) is designed to
secure the autonomy of the Convention system by preventing States
involved in such a dispute from using means of settlement other than
those set out in the Convention. Its function cannot be to stop States
from coming to Strasbourg to ensure collective enforcement of the
European public order, in particular where, as in the present case, the
complaints relate to alleged massive violations of human rights
protected in the Convention. The applicant Government also rely on
case-law of the International Court of Justice according to which a
judicial body which as such is competent to deal with a dispute is not
deprived of its jurisdiction by ongoing settlement negotiations
concerning the same matter.

      Article 62 (Art. 62) of the Convention reads as follows:

      "The High Contracting Parties agree that, except by special
      agreement, they will not avail themselves of treaties,
      conventions or declarations in force between them for the purpose
      of submitting, by way of petition, a dispute arising out of the
      interpretation or application of this Convention to a means of
      settlement other than those provided for in this Convention."

      The Commission has never before been called upon to examine the
meaning of this provision, nor is there any relevant case-law of the
Court in this respect. However, the Commission considers that, having
regard to the wording of Article 62 (Art. 62) itself and the aim and
purpose of the Convention as a whole,  the possibility for a High
Contracting Party of withdrawing a case from the jurisdiction of the
Convention organs on the ground that it has entered into a special
agreement with the other High Contracting Party concerned, is given
only in exceptional circumstances.

      The principle stipulated in Article 62 (Art. 62) is the monopoly
of the Convention institutions for deciding disputes arising out of the
interpretation and application of the Convention.  The High Contracting
Parties agree not to avail themselves of other treaties, conventions
and declarations in force between them for the purpose of submitting
such disputes to other means of settlement.  Only exceptionally is a
departure from this principle permitted, subject to the existence of
a "special agreement" between the High Contracting Parties concerned,
permitting the submission of the dispute - concerning "the
interpretation or application of the Convention" - to an alternative
means of settlement "by way of petition".

      The Commission considers that the conditions for invoking such
a special agreement are not fulfilled in the present case.  A primary
condition, namely the consent of both High Contracting Parties
concerned to withdraw the particular dispute from the jurisdiction of
the Convention organs, is lacking, the applicant Government clearly
opposing such a way of proceeding.  Even assuming that both Turkey and
Cyprus are bound by international obligations concerning the
intercommunal talks and the Committee on Missing Persons, it is
difficult to see how this could amount to a "special agreement" between
them to resort exclusively to these means of settlement precluding the
Convention organs from performing their normal functions.  The parties
to the agreements establishing the intercommunal talks and the
Committee on Missing Persons are formally different from the parties
to the present proceedings.  In particular, Turkey is not a formal
party to these agreements.  Moreover, neither agreement relates
specifically to the settlement of a dispute on the interpretation or
application of the Convention, let alone the particular dispute now
submitted to the Commission.  Nor is it provided in these agreements
that any such dispute can be submitted to the intercommunal talks or
the Committee on Missing Persons "by way of petition".

      The Commission concludes that it is not prevented from examining
the present application on the ground that there exists a "special
agreement" to this effect between the two High Contracting Parties
concerned.  The Commission would add that, generally speaking, the
performance of its functions under Article 19 (Art. 19) of the
Convention cannot in any way be impeded by the fact that certain
aspects of the situation underlying an application filed with it are
being dealt with, from a different angle, by other international
bodies.

      The respondent Government's above objection to the admissibility
of the application must accordingly be rejected.


IV.   Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies and to comply with
      the six months rule

      Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may
only deal with a case after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,
according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and
within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision
was taken.

      The Commission has in the previous cases between the same parties
confirmed its case-law according to which the rule requiring the
exhaustion of domestic remedies applies not only in individual
applications lodged under Article 25 (Art. 25) but also in cases
brought by States under Article 24 (Art. 24) of the Convention.  This
rule means in principle that remedies, which are shown to exist within
the legal system of the responsible State, must be used and exhausted
in the normal way before the Commission is seized of a case; on the
other hand remedies which do not offer a possibility of redressing the
alleged injury or damage cannot be regarded as effective or sufficient
and need not, therefore, be exhausted.

      The respondent Government submit that the alleged victims of
violations of the Convention have made no use of the judicial system
set up by the TRNC, which comprises effective and adequate
institutional guarantees. The TRNC Constitution is based on the
principles of the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution
(Articles 1 and 7), it provides for an independent judiciary (Articles
136, 137, 141 and 150) and for effective judicial control of executive
and legislative activity (Articles 146-148 and 152).  Article 17
(Art. 17) relating to fair and public hearing is similar to Article 6
(Art. 6) of the Convention and prohibits the establishment of judicial
committees or special courts under any name whatsoever.  No one is
denied the right to have any criminal charge brought against him to be
heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.  No act of the
administration can be excluded from judicial review.  Article 152
provides for judicial review of administrative action on the grounds
of excess and/or abuse of power, illegality and unconstitutionality.
Military courts function under Articles 156 and 157 and have competence
to try only military offences defined in special laws.  It is only in
rare cases, as when an offence has been committed in a military area,
that civilians may be tried by military courts.  There is also
provision for judicial review of legislation by way of reference to the
Supreme Constitutional Court (Article 148) and institution of
proceedings for annulment of legislation and subsidiary legislation
(Article 147).

      The respondent Government claim that the existence of an
effective and independent judicial system in the TRNC has also been
recognised in the Commission's own case-law.  They refer to the
Commission's Report of 8 July 1993 on applications Nos. 15299/89 and
15300/89, Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey.  In paragraph
169 of that Report, the Commission found that there was no indication
of control exercised by Turkish authorities over the administration of
justice by Turkish Cypriot authorities. In paragraph 174 the Commission
recognised the existence of an effective remedy before the national
authority in northern Cyprus when it noted that the applicants in that
case had been brought before judicial authorities which they refused
to recognise, and that they had not wished to avail themselves of such
remedies as might have been available to them with regard to the
circumstances of their arrest by Turkish Cypriot police.  The
Commission concluded that in the circumstances there was no breach of
Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.

      The respondent Government further submit that the question of
exhaustion of domestic remedies must be approached on a case by case
basis having regard to the particular violations of the Convention
alleged by the applicant Government.  They point out in particular that
the alleged Turkish Cypriot victims and the Greek Cypriot victims from
the Karpas area did not make use of the remedies available to them in
the TRNC.  In this respect the respondent Government have submitted a
list of cases brought by Greek Cypriots in Turkish Cypriot courts and
which includes inter alia cases relating to trespass by other persons
and unlawful cultivation of land belonging to Greek Cypriot plaintiffs
in the Karpas area and where the claims of the plaintiffs were accepted
by the competent TRNC courts.

      The applicant Government refute these arguments.  They claim that
any remedies which may exist in Turkey or in the TRNC are not practical
and effective for Greek Cypriots living in the Government-controlled
area; and that they are ineffective for enclaved Greek Cypriots or
Turkish Cypriots having regard to the particular nature of the
complaints and the legal and administrative framework set up in the
north of Cyprus; as regards the case-law of TRNC "courts" referred to
by  the respondent Government, the applicant Government claim that it
relates to situations different from those complained of in the present
application, i.e. to disputes between private parties and not to
challenges to legislation and administrative action.

      With regard to the question whether the remedies indicated by the
respondent Government can in the circumstances of the present case be
considered as effective, the Commission first observes that some of the
complaints, in particular those concerning property rights, relate to
the implementation of purported legislative acts of the TRNC, and that,
according to the Commission's case-law, the rule requiring the
exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply to complaints the object
of which is to determine the compatibility with the Convention of
legislative measures and administrative practices, except where
specific and effective remedies against legislation exist.  It is true
that in the TRNC the judicial review of "legislation" as to its
"constitutionality" is provided for, but in the particular
circumstances of the present case this is of no avail because the
measures complained of are essentially stipulated in the TRNC
"Constitution" itself.

      The Commission has noted the respondent Government's reference
to the existence of effective remedies in the TRNC and the survey of
case-law which has been presented to it on the occasion of the oral
hearing.  In this respect the Commission recalls its findings in the
decision on the admissibility of Application No. 8007/77 (D.R. 13,
p. 152, paras. 36-37) according to which the overwhelming majority of
Greek Cypriots, whose rights and freedoms under the Convention are
alleged to have been violated, are at present resident in the southern
part of Cyprus controlled by the applicant Government and are not
permitted by the Turkish authorities to enter the northern part of the
island.  In these circumstances, any remedies which might be said to
be available to such Greek Cypriots in the northern area cannot on
principle be considered as "practicable".

      The Commission has further noted, in particular as to the alleged
violation of property rights of Greek Cypriots still resident in the
north of the island, that it does not appear from the cases referred
to in the above material submitted by the respondent Government that
the proceedings concerned interferences with property rights as alleged
in the present application - namely, interferences by a public
authority or by private persons acting with the consent of such an
authority, as described in the "Particulars of the application".

      It follows that the remedies indicated by the respondent
Government cannot, for the purposes of the present application, be
considered as relevant and sufficient and that they need not,
therefore, be exhausted.

      Apart from these considerations, the Commission considers it
relevant to observe that, in distinction from the previous
applications, the respondent Government in the present case rely
exclusively on remedies which are claimed to be available before
Turkish Cypriot authorities whereas the applicant Government claim that
these authorities are de facto under the control of Turkey.  The
Commission also notes the applicant Government's submission according
to which these remedies are generally ineffective for Greek Cypriots,
and the related complaints submitted under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention.  In the light of the Court's Loizidou (Preliminary
Objections) judgment according to which Turkish responsibility under
the Convention may arise also where it exercises control over an area
outside its national territory "through a subordinate local
administration" (loc. cit. p. 24, para. 62), it appears that the
question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies before TRNC courts is
closely related to the issue of Turkish "jurisdiction" which can only
be determined at the merits stage of the proceedings.  To this extent
the Commission must accordingly reserve the final determination to the
later stage of the proceedings.

      The Commission concludes that the application cannot be rejected
under Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

      The respondent Government also submit that at least part of the
application is inadmissible for non-observance of the six months rule
laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26).  They claim that the applicant
Government's complaints, in particular those relating to missing and
displaced persons, do not concern continuing violations, but
instantaneous acts which occurred a long time ago and which are
therefore time-barred.

      The applicant Government maintain that the application concerns
"continuing violations" within the meaning of the Commission's case-law
to which the six months rule is not applicable.

      In this respect, the Commission reiterates its findings in the
decision on the admissibility of Application No. 8007/77 according to
which, on the one hand, in the absence of remedies, the six months
period must be counted as from the act or decision which is alleged to
be in violation of the Convention, but on the other hand, it does not
apply to a permanent state of affairs which is still continuing.  As
the present application alleges for the most part continuing violations
of the Convention, in respect of which the Commission cannot at the
present stage of the proceedings examine whether or not they are well-
founded, because this would imply a preliminary examination of the
merits of the case, it must reserve this question for later
consideraton (loc. cit., pp. 153-154, paras. 43-45).

      The Commission concludes that the application cannot be rejected
under Articles 26 and 27 para. 3 (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention for
non-observance of the six months rule.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
      merits of the case.

     H.C. KRÜGER                           S. TRECHSEL


         Secretary                             President
     to the Commission                     of the Commission