A European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision urging Turkey to pay millions of euro in compensation to Cyprus with respect to human rights violation is a blow to Ankara and has seriously damaged its credibility, Turkish Cypriot lawyer Emine Colak, chairperson of the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, believes.
The Grand Chamber judgment relating to the interstate appeal by Cyprus against Turkey said that Turkey has to pay Cyprus 30,000,000 euros in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered by the relatives of the missing persons, and 60,000,000 euros in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered by the enclaved Greek-Cypriot residents of the Karpas peninsula. These amounts are to be distributed by the Cypriot Government to the individual victims under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2001 the Court found numerous violations of the Convention by Turkey, arising out of the military operations Ankara had conducted in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974, the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus and the activities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. Regarding the issue of just satisfaction, the Court held at the time that it was not ready for a decision and adjourned its consideration.
Invited by CNA to comment on the most recent judgment, Colak said that the 60-page decision, apart from awarding compensation to the victims, is also considered a punishment for Turkey.
Strong legal terms were used to convey a message and countries of the Council of Europe, in the event of war, invasion and armed intervention, will be forced to pay compensation to victims, even if there are no negative consequences on the political front, she noted. This reference to the decision as a trigger for new arguments between CoE states, she added.
With this precedent, she explained, ECHR behaviour will be clearer compared to the past, irrespective of what the cause is, when a case is based on human rights violations arising from war or conflict. “Personally, I don`t believe this is a bad message”, she pointed out.
Commenting on the Turkish government`s statement that it will not pay, Colak said it was a hasty and counterproductive. One has the right to express concern and non-satisfaction with a decision, however it is damaging to extend threats even against court decisions, she said. Turkey, Colak added, had expressed its opposition at the Titina Loizidou case, but at the end of the day, paid the compensation.
In the best possible scenario, she said, the compensation will be awarded with interest, but what is worse is that Turkey will be stigmatised as a country which does not respect human rights, is far away from modern standards and has no place in the EU.
The fact that this decision came at a time when efforts for a solution are under way, she said, may act as a psychological boost or a tactical lead for the Greek Cypriot side, said Colak. She expressed concern that efforts to find a solution in the past 50 years have not produced any agreement, adding that not everything can be postponed until a solution.
The decision, she said, was aptly issued at a time when discussions are being held in Cyprus` Turkish occupied areas to improve human rights and amend the “constitution”, noting that despite the fact that the Turkish Cypriot illegal regime was not recognised in the May 2001 ECHR decision, the Court had taken into consideration the regime`s “constitution” and had defined the inadequacies in the field of human rights.
For this reason, she said, whoever is against the ECHR decision, should discuss what needs to be done to avoid a repetition of such ruling. The Human Rights Foundation, said Colak, points out the significance of the decision in relation to improving articles of the “constitution” concerning human rights.
On his part, professor of International Relations at the “university” of Near East Ali Dayioglu, commenting on the ECHR decision said that if Turkey is an EU candidate and wants to join the ranks of the European Union, it is obliged to implement the ruling.
The 2001 decision ruled that Turkey violated a number of human rights but together with the administration in the occupied areas after 2004 had taken steps to restore these rights such as allowing secondary education for Greek Cypriots in Rizokarpaso. The Turkish Cypriot side, however, did not take sufficient action for the human rights of Turkish Cypriots at the ECHR, he remarked.
The Court, said Dayioglu, had taken note of very important progress in the violation of certain rights and said he was surprised that the ECHR adjudicated such high compensation.
He said he could have understood the amount of compensation ordered by the Court, had no improvements relating to respect of human rights not taken place. The “abrupt” reintroduction of the issue into the limelight, coupled with the perception that no improvements with regard to human rights has been made, seem to punish the Turkish Cypriots, he said.
According to the Turkish Cypriot professor, the relevant statements made in Turkey and the occupied areas are not realistic. He referred to Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu`s remark that he does not recognise the decision which basically meant that Turkey will not pay the compensation and said: “If Turkey is an EU candidate and wants to join the Union, it is obliged to implement the decision.”
He recalled that in the Titina Loizidou case (Greek Cypriot who won a case against Ankara relating to her property in occupied Cyprus) Turkey was refusing to pay the compensation, however in the end it had to with interest.
The Copenhagen criteria include a provision on the execution of ECHR decisions, said Dayioglu and if Turkey wants to really become a member of the EU, it will have to pay the compensation in the end.