AVRUPA KONSEYİ PARLAMENTER MECLİSİ

 HAZİRAN GENEL KURUL TOPLANTISI ESNASINDA

 TÜRK DELEGASYONU ÜYELERİNİN YAPTIKLARI KONUŞMALAR

 

ADOPTION OF THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – There are two reports on the agenda that relate to the rights of

Greek Cypriots and minorities living in the northern part of Cyprus, and the colonisation by Turkish  settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus. Those reports were prepared by our colleagues, Mr Marty and  Mr Laakso, in 2001. They contain facts about Cyprus, but due to recent developments in the island  the majority of the reports will have to be revised to reflect the current situation.

 

                 For example, in Mr Marty’s report, the first paragraph of the memorandum by the rapporteur  says: “the demarcation line separating Greek and Turkish Cypriots has been guarded by barbed wire,  watch towers and soldiers of the international peace-keeping forces. The line prevents almost any contact between the two communities and severely restricts freedom of movement of persons and goods.” Due to recent developments, these arguments are no longer valid. Outdated information can  be found in the major parts of the two reports. No room is left to make the reports credible by means  of amendments.

 

                 In addition, we all know that there have been positive developments. Both parties have been making concerted efforts to achieve a fair solution in Cyprus. The Council of Europe should encourage these efforts. More importantly, it should restrain from adopting a negative approach to the solution  process. In that context, discussion of these reports during the plenary session will not help the process. Indeed, it might jeopardise cordial and  Constructive efforts.

 

                 I move that under Rule 37.1.d the reports be referred back to the relevant committees and then discussed during the full session of the Assembly.

 

PROGRESS REPORT OF THE BUREAU AND THE STANDING COMMITTEE

OBSERVATION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN ARMENIA

 

           Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report on parliamentary elections in Armenia.

 

           My country has social and cultural ties with the Caucasian states and has a special interest in establishing peace and stability in the region.  We are directly affected by the regional developments:  stable and prosperous neighbours will no doubt be in our interest.  Therefore, the consolidation of democracy, independence and the protection of territorial integrity of the countries in the region are prerequisites for peace and stability in the region.  Free and fair elections, which are the basis of democracy, can only contribute to achieve these aims.

           As far as the parliamentary elections in Armenia are concerned, I must say that the reports of the international election observation mission, composed of representatives from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (ODIHR-OSCE) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe informing us about improvements in presidential voting, have, at first glance, given hope to those attached to universal values.  It is understood that elections marked improvements over the recent presidential voting.

 

     However, some concerns still exist overall at the irregularities observed and the failure to meet  international standards overall. It is clear that concrete steps towards avoiding a repetition of the irregularities that characterised the last presidential elections as well as the recent parliamentary elections should be taken so that drawing back from the democratic process is not to be allowed in the future.  No efforts  should be spared in the consolidation of democracy in the country.

 

           Furthermore, taking into account the low turnout in the elections, I think the first thing that the Armenian authorities should do is restore public confidence in the political process.  One way to do that could be through the credible and careful examination of electoral complaints and appeals.

 

           Another important and rather worrying development I observed was the rejection of the draft constitutional amendments during the referendum organised in the margin of the elections. This is particulary worrying, when one takes into account the fact that many outstanding reforms in the country which might consequently facilitate the compliance with the Council of Europe commitments  by Armenia could not be realised soon.

 

           I hope that the necessary democratic reforms in Armenia will not be left too late, so that the wish to come closer to European standards, which will definitely contribute to the stability and well-being of the whole region, will be realised soon.  Co-operation with the Council of Europe should,  I believe, be strengthened and given priority in this regard.

 

           I avail myself of this opportunity also to call on Armenia to respect fully the territorial integrity and internationally recognised borders of its neighbours.  It should also comply with the basic norms of international law, as well as taking concrete steps towards the resolution of its conflicts with its neighbour Azerbaijan.

 

AGRICULTURE AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

 

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – First and foremost, let me thank Mr Libicki for his timely and

important report. The issue is particularly important at a time when the European Union is reforming its common agricultural policy and stepping towards an historic enlargement, especially given that in the candidate countries the rural population represents a greater share of the total population.

 

                 It is true that the countries included in the latest wave of enlargement are not as lucky as Spain, Portugal and Greece, the last countries to accede to the European Community. The agricultural sectors of those three countries have profited from the EC’s liberal subsidy policies. Conditions have changed since then, however, and now acceding countries bear more responsibility for the work involved. I am sure that virtually all the acceding countries have done comprehensive work to align their agriculture legislation and policies with that of the EU. My country has taken comprehensive steps towards that end. Although the report contains information on the subject, I want to highlight some of our achievements.

 

                 One substantial achievement was the introduction of the direct support system, a project undertaken in co-operation with the World Bank. Work is continuing on the establishment of a farmers’ registration system, in which data on agricultural units will be collected and evaluated.

 

                 The issues dealt with by Mr Libicki in the draft resolution are very important. In particular, the idea of revising the CAP in order to simplify it and make it more transparent for the rural population throughout Europe is a good one, because it will take the issues from the tables of the bureaucrats in Brussels or the capitals of member states down to the fields, to the very people who are directly involved and interested. As such, it will be possible to have feedback and establish a working co-operation with those who take the benefits of these policies or who suffer from them.

 

                 It is evident that enlargement of the EU will create difficulties of adaptation for agricultural sectors in the candidate states and also difficulties for member states. However, in the long run, it is sure to pay dividends for all EU members. I strongly support Mr Libicki’s report and thank him for his co-operation during the preparatory phase of his report.

 

            Areas where the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be implemented

 

Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – At the outset, I cannot but help state my scepticism and      astonishment at the appointment of the rapporteur.  It is beyond comprehension that a person from  an area of conflict referred to in a report has been appointed as a rapporteur by the relevant commiittee.  Such an attitude might put at risk the reliability of the report, as well as, I am afraid, the credibility of the committee.  It is my strong opinion that the credibility of the Parliamentary Assembly, which above all stands for justice and impartiality, should never be jeopardised.

 

                 As far as the recurrent allegation of “occupation” of northern Cyprus is concerned, one must not forget that it is beyond the reflection of the current realities or the legal situation in the island. As is well recalled, Turkey launched the Cyprus peace operation in 1974 in the island by exercising its rights and obligations under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee.  Therefore, Turkey’s peace operation is in total conformity with international law.  Thanks to this operation, the island’s annexation by Greece, led by an administration that came to power as a result of a coup on 15 July 1974, has been prevented.  The peace operation has created an environment of tranquillity in the last twenty years and it has assured the safety of the people and the security of their possessions.  The legitimate presence of the Turkish forces in northern Cyprus, which continues to perform a peacekeeping mission in the island by serving as a deterrent against the repetition of Greek Cypriot aggression against the Turkish Cypriots, is a vital security requirement for the Turkish Cypriot people.

 

                 As for the legal remedies offered by the Council of Europe, it should be noted that the Turkish Cypriots could not file individual applications against the Greek Cypriot administration at the European Commission on Human Rights about violations of their basic human rights between the years 1963 and 1974 because that administration did not recognise the right of individual application until January 1989.  At present, it is not possible to bring an inter-state application by northern Cyprus against the Greek Cypriot administration at the European Court of Human Rights.  However, many Cases brought by Turkish Cypriot citizens against the Greek Cypriot administration exist.

 

                 In addition, I must point out that the European Court of Human Rights rejected a number of complaints by the Greek Cypriot administration on the ground that there are effective judidical Remedies within the northern Cyprus judicial system which are also available to the Greek Cypriots. Application No. 25781/94 constitutes an instance of such cases.  In view of this, no complaint can be admissible without domestic remedies available in the northern Cyprus being exhausted.  It is clear that the Court recognises such remedies as “domestic remedies” which need to be exhausted under the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

                 The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has not only clarified the position in connection with the remedies within the northern Cyprus legal system to which its inhabitants must resort and which they must exhaust before an application is made to the European Court of Human Rights.  It has also given support to the suggestion that, as a de facto state in the eyes of non-recognising states, the acts and transactions of northern Cyprus relating to civil-law rights and regulations concerning the daily activities of its inhabitants cannot be disregarded in international law because they are for the benefit of inhabitants.  The Court rejected the Greek Cypriot argument that northern Cyprus was an “illegal entity” and that therefore the acts of these authorities had no effect  in international law.

 

                 Therefore, I believe that the draft report in question inherits serious shortcomings,

     inaccuracies and legal mistakes.  It would be wrong for our Assembly to proceed further by adopting it with all these inaccuracies.

 

                 Mr SÜLEYMAN GÜNDÜZ (Turkey). – Before sharing my comments on the report, I should draw the kind attention of the Assembly to the grave concerns that have arisen through the appointment  of the rapporteur on this subject.  Mr Pourgourides, coming from an area that is mentioned as a region of conflict, was appointed as a rapporteur.  The report itself has unfortunately justified our scepticism about the reliability of the work.  Neither side of this analysis stands up to scrutiny.  This appointment has contributed nothing, apart from diminishing the credibility of the committee.

 

                 As for the allegations contained in the report concerning the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus, I should stress that the report falls short of any logic or any reasonable ground.  In conformity with our expectations, it reflects the prejudices and the motives of propaganda instread of truth and reality.  The Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus is mentioned as being among the areas in which a legal vacuum exists.  However, even the case-law presented as a proof is a concrete denial of the rapporteur’s opinion.  The European Court of Human Rights has never considered the situation as Mr Pourgourides did.

 

                 Moreover, as for the other point raised in the report, I must point out that the legislative and constitutional reforms realised in Turkey and even numerous resolutions of the Committee of Ministers about the positive developments in this respect have been somehow ignored by the rapporteur.

 

                 Furthermore, in the past the Court has rejected some complaints of the Greek Cypriot  Administration on the basis of the existence of the effective judicial remedies within the Turkish  Republic of northern Cyprus.

 

                 On the other hand, the Court should be the sole authority in determining the issue of the existence of a legal vacuum within the principle of the rule of law.

 

                 I think we have the right to know whether the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights or the Assembly intends to some extent to negotiate or to challenge the competence of the Court.

 

                 This report contains too many legal mistakes.  These mistakes are obviously derived from the rapporteur’s intensive efforts to put forward some political assessments on legal grounds.  For example, the Commissioner for Human Rights, whom it is proposed in the report should be entrusted with the post of public prosecutor, is indeed a person of a political nature.  I would like to remind the rapporteur that avoiding entrusting the same authority with both political and judicial powers is among the basic rules of democratic governance.

 

                 I fully agree with the necessity of ensuring the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights.  I believe that the Assembly would play an immense role in this respect.  However, this report does not go beyond speculations and inaccuracies.

 

                 Mr MEVLÜT ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – The preamble of the European Convention on Human Rights notes that the European states are like minded and have a common heritage of ideals, freedoms and the rule of law.  I do not share the views that there are “lawless areas” within the territory of the Council of Europe member states.  We have an international treaty, which imposes obligations on high contracting member states to respect a large variety of provisions.  It is also accepted that the Convention is a constitutional instrument of the European public order.  Most important of all, the Convention has a well-established, and a well-working enforcement mechanism.

     The Convention covers almost all of Europe.  There are not forty-four European countries which have ratified the Convention.

 

                 What I would like to underline is that, instead of talking in a geographical vacuum in implementing the Convention, we should better find ways to support the existing system, to ease the work load of the Court.  While doing this, we must of course also take care not to hinder the Convention’s main object.  Appointing a public prosecutor, as suggested in Mr Pougourides’ report is  certainly not one of the solutions; it could in reality increase the work load of the Court.

 

                 I regretfully note that the rapporteur tries to exploit the Court’s judgments to over-politise a well-functioning legal system by referring to some cases and interpreting them according to this personal understanding.

 

                 There are applications lodged before the European Court of Human Rights on the conflicts mentioned in the report.  It would be extremely inappropriate to pre-judge the possible outcomes of these cases.  One of the examples shown by the rapporteur was the Öcalan case.  The rapporteur is interpreting the admissibility decision of the Court as he wishes, alleging that the transfer of this terrorist from Kenya to Turkey in order to try him for the crimes he committed is a violation of the Convention.  The Court delivered its judgment on 12 March 2003, finding that there was no violation of this kind.  On the other hand, it can be seen that the inadmissibility decision in the Bankovic case, which is another case referred to by the rapporteur, has not been sufficiently elaborated.  The Court based its judgment not on the theory of legal vacuum and the necessity of a remedy, but on the existence of the notion of “ratione loci”  jurisdiction and decided negatively.

 

                 In conclusion, I find the draft report unsubstantiated, lacking a clear objective.  Making serious alterations on the mechanisms of the European Convention on Human Rights and basing them on such unclear and obscure views would be a serious mistake.

 

                 Mr AKÇAM (Turkey). – This report unfortunately goes far beyond the scope of the previous one prepared by Mr Magnusson, since it introduces a new set of unclear and even obscure points.  Mr  Magnusson’s report was based on the aim of ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law in situations of armed conflict, which raised difficulties in or even prevented the implementation of the Convention’s control mechanism.

 

                 First of all, I have to emphasise that the case-law mentioned in the draft report, especially those which concern the Turkish cases, are themselves a flagrant denial of the absence of any legal vacuum.  I do not believe that any authority other than the Court has the right to define the concept of legal vacuum.

 

                 Secondly, speculations and assumptions in the report about the admissibility decisions of the Court are unacceptable since admissibility decisions cannot be regarded as the final judgment of the Court.  Also, some references in the report, like the Öcalan case, are totally wrong as mentioned in the Court’s judgment.

 

                 Furthermore, I noticed that the inadmissibility decision of the Court in the Bankovic case has not been elaborated sufficiently.  The Court based its judgment on the existence of  the notion of  “ratione loci” jurisdiction, not on the theory of legal vacuum.

 

                 I believe that places where the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be

     implemented are getting increasingly limited, and all applications have been made to the Court on the conflicts mentioned in the draft report.  I do not think that it is appropriate to prejudge the possible outcomes of these cases and the effectiveness of the Court’s procedures.  In addition to these points, it is clear that the rapporteur uses legal terms arbitrarily, such as “legal vacuum” and “technical difficulties” in the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The report does not have any definition of serious violations of human rights.  It is regrettable that the report tries to exploit the Court’s judgments to over-politicise a well-functioning legal system.

 

                 In conclusion, I think that it would be inappropriate to initiate, through this report, any reflection which would result in a serious alteration of the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights, based on unclear and obscure views and concepts.  I would like to reiterate that the report in question is irrelevant and unsubstantial.

 

CONTRIBUTION OF THE EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Mr Mevlüt ÇAVU?O?LU (Turkey). – First, I thank the rapporteur, Mr Braun. I have read the

report in detail. As we are all aware, it deals with a subject that is vital.

 

                 The Council of Europe and the EBRD complement each other in many ways. We fully support the demanding human rights policy that is followed by the Bank, and we much appreciate the Bank’s Valuable contribution to the promotion of human rights and democratic principles through its strategies and political dialogue with the authorities of countries of operations.

 

                 We think that the legal transition programme is an excellent strategy for the improvement of  the investment climate in Europe. It will help to create an investor-friendly, transparent and Predictable legal environment. My country closely follows these programmes.

 

                 The EBRD and the Council of Europe work in many of the same geographical areas, including the western Balkans, Russia and Ukraine. I understand that the Bank is likely to shift its attention and its resources in the coming years further to the east, in particular to the Caucasus and central Asia. There is thus convergence between the two organisations and the opportunity for more co-operation. In this context, we should encourage the Bank and the countries of operations concerned to have closer co-operation with the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the Council of Europe Development Bank and the Black Sea Development Bank.

 

                 I believe that several projects could be financed by the EBRD with a view to transforming and further developing democratic institutions in the central Asian countries. Betterment of prison systems, and support for the participation of non-governmental organisations in democratic life, human rights and education, are some areas that come to mind. In that way, democratic stabilisation of these countries could further be enhanced.

 

                 We believe that the EBRD’s work in Europe is directly relevant to our overall aims of promoting long-term security and stability and preventing conflict by addressing the causes of İnstability, and especially by assisting states to build the necessary structures and institutions for  democracy, sound economic development and the rule of law in Europe.

 

                 It will be particularly useful that the present and future activities of the EBRD in support of its own wider Europe initiative will take place, inter alia, through support of regional co-operation initiatives between the countries concerned.

 

                 It is an appropriate decision that the new EBRD strategy will focus more on the countries in  the Caucasus and in central Asia. It is a natural development, taking into account that some assets will be freed in the EU accession countries in the near future.

 

                 It can be simply stated that our objective in our shared European continent is to equip it to sustain liberal democracy and the rule of law, rooted in strong institutions and supported by thriving market economies trading with one another and with the wider Europe. An ambitious vision like ours also requires close partnership with other key players, and the EBRD is one of the key players in this context.

 

Questıons to Rudolf Suchuster, Presıdent of the Republıc of Slovakıa

 

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – Mr President, I welcome you to our Hemicycle. We wish you a fruitful

working visit to the Council of Europe.

 

We all appreciate, Mr President, that as the ex-mayor of Kosice you contributed a great deal      to reforms of local administration. We appreciate your support for the activities of the Council of Europe in that area.

 

                 Mr President, do you find the current transport of co-operation mechanism of the Council of  Europe sufficient and efficient?

 

                 THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

 

                 President Schuster, would you like to reply?

 

                 Mr SCHUSTER (President of the Sloak Republic) said that he thought that the arrangements were successful. He described current efforts at co-operation, mentioning that the Schengen border was still an impediment, and said that they were generally on the right track.

 

Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – My question has been partly answered. Slovakia has taken important Steps towards jurisdictional reforms to which you have made a personal contribution. Do you believe that jurisdictional independence has been widely achieved in your country? What else can be done?

 

                 THE PRESIDENT. – I call President Schuster to reply.

 

                 Mr SCHUSTER described the judicial system, including the appointment and dismissal of judges. He said that there were a number of outstanding issues such as corruption involving the political and judicial systems, but the judicial system was independent.

 

Actıvıtıes of the ınternatıonal organızatıon for mıgratıon

  

              Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur. There had often been mass movements of people, and global migration was a contemporary phenomenon. People were also often forced to move, and in those circumstances could find themselves being discriminated against. Groups of different beliefs and different cultures were thrown together, and they had to try and live together on the basis of universal human values. Society should not commit the mistakes of the past. Migration flows brought with them opportunities, and groups of people should not be made to live in isolation. With co-operation, a better future could be achieved.

 

RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF THE GREEK CYPRIOTS AND MARONITES LIVING IN THE NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS AND

COLONISATION BY TURKISH SETTLERS OF THE OCCUPIED PART OF CYPRUS

 

Mrs BİLGEHAN (Turkey) said that it was a shame to talk about Cyprus on the basis of the

reports which had been presented to the Assembly and which contained a number of contentious points. There was some hope now of settling the conflict, and the Assembly should be careful not to disrupt that progress.

 

                 She said that, reading the reports, one wondered where the Assembly had been when the Turkish people in northern Cyprus had been forced to live in enclaves and were not allowed to travel.  It was important to work towards peace, but that could not be done on the basis of inaccurate information. The reports did not reflect the changes of the last few months. References were made to the green line, which no longer existed. New regulations which had allowed people to cross the green line, together with other measures, had been building confidence in the last few months. Nearly  300 000 people had crossed the line since the new regulations, and that was the best answer to the  report. Freedom of movement and access to public institutions had been guaranteed to all citizens by  the Turkish Government.

 

                 On the question of colonisation, workers had come to both parts of Cyprus from Turkey, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and other countries. Why were the Turks described as colonisers and other nationalities referred to as migrant workers? The reports should have been revised as they were damaging to the credibility of the Assembly.

 

                 Mr MERCAN (Turkey). – I have carefully studied the report by Mr Marty on the rights and fundamental freedoms of Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in northern Cyprus.

 

                 Before I proceed on to specific observations on the report, I would like to draw the

     Assembly’s attention, first and foremost, to the fact that, having been prepared prior to the historic developments in the island of Cyprus, initiated by the Turkish Cypriot side on 21 April 2003, the report we have in front of us today, is outdated and needs major revisions.  It does not reflect the actual situation in the island, it is obsolete and therefore invalid.  It can be neither a basis for our arguments today nor a basis for any conclusion that will follow.  It needs to be rewritten in the light of recent developments.

 

                 Following this argument, I would like to point to two specific issues to support my ideas and to ask the members of the Assembly to vote against the report.

 

                 Referring to past events, the rapporteur at least has the responsibility to maintain a minimum Degree  of impartiality and objectivity.  For a complete pictiiure of the situation in the island, we should also consider what happened in 1974, especially if we are talking about the demography of the island.  It is undoubtedly the events prior to 1974, going as far back as 1963, undertaken by the Greek Cypriot leadership against the Turkish community, which shaped population movements and contributed to making up the demographic structure of today.  I believe that the rapporteur has the responsibility to reflect the full picture in his report, otherwise the report will be biased and lack objectivity.

 

                 I would also like to refer members of the Assembly to a letter by Mr Vehbi Zeki Serter, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the TRNC, addressed to the rapporteur and dated 15 May  2002.  This letter is very interesting indeed in the sense that it introduces very reasonable counter-arguments to the points raised by the rapporteur.  For example, it draws our attention to a report by the UN Secretary General, submitted to the Security Council on 10 June 1998, where the Secretary General corroborated the view that “The standard of living of Greek Cypriots on the Karpas Peninsula does not differ significantly from that of the Turkish Cypriots living in the same area”.

 

                 Furthermore, the letter by Mr Serter challenges the claims of “imposed division of families” introduced by the rapporteur (paragraph 7) by giving concrete examples of family reunification, ie the case of Mr Achilleas Anastasi, a Greek Cypriot - upon his request, the Turkish authorities immediately granted permission to his wife and child to come and live in TRNC - and Ms Christina Varnava, who had lived in northern Cyprus for several years.  I am sure the rapporteur himself can find numerous examples of unification of families living in the north.

 

                 I will not go into details of the letter but it is available to all those who are interested and produces very sound arguments on the issues of right to inheritance, right to property, education,  worship and movement.

 

                 Please also allow me to voice my utter disappointment at the terminology utilised in some  sections of the report.

 

                 Paragraph 7 of the draft resolution alleges that “there is a general climate of apprehension…, even fear to which the members of the (Greek Cypriot and Maronite) communities are deliberately subjected to”, and paragraph 30 of the memorandum similarly claims that “…(there is a) policy aimed at deliberately annihilating the two very minority communities, living in the norther part of the island..”.

 

                 These accusations are unacceptable and deplorable.  They are not substantiated by data, and therefore are baseless and false.  I ask the rapporteur to tell me how many Greek Cypriots and  Maronites have been deprived of free movement.  I appeal to the rapporteur to study carefully the realities of the island.  I also would like to appeal to Mr Marty to take into account the latest initiatives by the TRNC and to incorporate the existing facts and the recent developments to his text.

     Is it not fair and obligatory to reflect these major changes in the report?

 

    I also would like to say a few words on the draft report prepared by Mr Laakso.  Let me begin with the title of the report:  “Colonisation by Turkish Settlers of the Occupied part of Cyprus”.  I  assure members of the Assembly that these remarks on the title will sufficiently summarise my evaluation of the report’s substance.

 

                 I will dwell upon two words of the title “colonisation” and “settlers”, first dealing with “settlers”. Mr Laakso simply justifies his preference for the word “settlers” by putting forth the argument that these people actually came to Cyprus with the aim of settling down. So he says “settlers” is the right word to use.

 

                The Turkish authorities, on the other hand, argue that the persons Mr Laakso refers to in his  report as “settlers” came to the island as workers after 1974, due to the fact that the thriving economy of northern Cyprus following the intervention necessitated more manpower than the current population can supply.  They also argue that, evidently perceiving the new opportunities created by the instalment of peace and security after the preceding bloodshed, the newcomers decided to stay on.  The Turkish authorities assert that the term “settlers”, when employed especially with “colonisation”, has far-reaching connotations and political implications, and these go beyond the mandate of the rapporteur.

 

                 The word “colonisation” is of a similar nature.  The Collins Dictionary defines this word as “control exercised on an country by a more powerful one, to use its resources in order to increase its own power or wealth”.  So this definition makes it clear that Mr Laakso believes that the Turks who went to Cyprus after 1974 turned the northern part of the island into a colony, usurping its resources  and taking the wealth of Turkish Cypriots living there to another country.

 

                 If we accept Mr Laakso’s logic and his line of argument, I believe things may get a bit confusing.  For example, we could also call 4 million Turks living in Germany today as “Turkish settlers”.  Similarly, if we want to make a report on the demographic changes in Germany since 1960s, we can name the report “The colonisation of Germany by Turkish and southeast European Settlers”,or, in the case of France, “The colonisation of France by Maghrebian Settlers”, or in the case of the United Kingdom, “The colonisation of UK by Indian Settlers”, and so forth.  We could multiply the examples.  It is more than obvious to every man and woman living in Europe that the situation in Cyprus as well as Germany, France and elsewhere cannot be described as such.

 

                 Though funny, I do not find myself in a position to laugh at these examples, because I know  very well that Mr Laakso employs these terms deliberately to blame Turkey on his favourite topic, which is Cyprus.  I have to say that Mr Laakso unfortunately puts the blame on one side while protecting the other.  This approach is completely against the spirit of the ideals and the principles that gather us around this Hemicycle.

 

                 It is not possible for me to accept these two biased and unsubstantiated reports.

 

                 Furthermore,  I remind everyone that major initiatives have been taken by the Turkish Cypriot authorities since 21 April 2003.  Also, there is strong willingness and commitment to reach a solution in the island.  These efforts should be encouraged and supported by the Council of Europe.  In my opinion, it is everyone’s responsibility in this Hemicycle to contribute to these efforts rather than discouraging them.  Unfortunately, these reports will be counterproductive, to say the least.

 

                 We are all responsible not only for our own country’s interests but also for the spirit of Europe, for our children and for humanity.  Our objectivity and fairness can only enlighten the future of Europe.  Thus, we will inherit a peaceful and brighter world to our children only when we uphold principles of fairness and objectivity.  Therefore, I ask the esteemed members of the Assembly to vote against the draft report.

 

                 Mr MEVLÜT ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – As the Cyprus question has been an outstanding issue on our agenda for a long time, my sincere expectation today was to attend and contribute to a debate based on impartial and factual reports.  Despite respecting the personal competence of the two distinguished rapporteurrs, regrettably I have to stress that the two reports in front of us are again far from reflecting the realities.

 

                 Defending an idea without having sufficient information is always misleading.  We can clearly see this mistake in the draft report prepared by Mr Marty.  The information and the views in the report are completely outdated.  On many occasions, we tried to explain the realities of the Cyprus question  to the rapporteur and the Assembly.  Unfortunately, we saw nothing but an insistence on approaching  the issue from one side.

 

                 The recent developments that took place in Cyprus opened a new era for the island.  One of the bases of the allegations in the report concerning the division of the island has not existed since 21 April 2003.  The Council of Ministers of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has taken further  complementary decisions to show its willingness to move towards stability and peaceful co-existence in the island.  Freedom of movement and unrestricted access to all state authorities and unofficial institutions, for Turkish and Greek Cypriots and Maronites, has been guaranteed by the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

 

                 In this context, it is not fair to insist on saying that Greek Cypriots and Maronites are isolated and exposed to some disturbances by the Turkish Cypriot authorities.  Every individual, including the Greek Cypriots and Maronites, is free to exercise his or her religious life and has the right of access to the judicial authorities.  In terms of education, free elementary and secondary education  is provided to the Greek Cypriots and Maronites, as to all TRNC citizens.  I would like to conclude with a few comments on the report entitled “Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus”, although my views are enclosed as a dissenting opinion to the report.  In my view, there is no need to discuss the midleading assessments, opinions an observations of the report.  Even its title is a clear indication of how the facts are overlooked,  disregarded and misused.

 

                 The distinguished rapporteur in his report and Sir Sydney Chapman in his speech have attributed the failure of the Cyprus talks in The Hague last March to the Turkish Cypriot side.  I can only say that discarding the negative attitude of the Greek Cypriot side during the talks does not  contribute to the efforts of creating a lasting solution.

 

                 As for the term “settlers”, I would appreciate it if the rapporteur could enlighten us in partiuclar on the criteria set by himself in determining some groups of people as settlers.  In the  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as witnessed in all countries, demand for labour and migration are valid phenomena.  In this respect, I also strongly condemn the rapporteur for using the word  “colonisation”.  The Turkish nation, with its history, knows very well the meaning of this word.

 

                 We are in a delicate stage in the Cyprus issue.  I observed with great dissatisfaction the intense efforts of the two rapporteurs to hinder the bringing of peace to the island by their failure to revise their reports according to recent developments.  However, I still sincerely hope that the Assembly will not pave the way for them by voting against the draft resolutions and recommendations.

 

                 Mr TEKELIOĞLU  (Turkey). – As I am aware that time is limited, I will confine myself to the points which are most striking to me on the two draft reports prepared by Mr Marty and Mr Laakso.

 

                 Firstly, I would like to underline that the draft report prepared by Mr Marty fails to reflect the latest situation on the island thereby leading to unrealistic and misleading conclusions.  The latest unilateral initiatives of the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have had a remarkable effect on the confidence-building in the island, including the rights and fundamental  freedoms of Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the northern part of Cyprus.  The most important feature of these developments is that they enabled the free movement of every person and all goods  from the north to the south and the opposite.

 

                 No mention has been made in Mr Marty’s report of the latest developments realised by the unilateral decisions of the TRNC authorities and their positive effects which simultaneously contributed to confidence-building on the island.  The report falls far behind the developments on the island not just on an factual basis but also because the rapporteur fails to follow the radical rapprochement on   the island.

 

                 Coming to the draft report prepared by Mr Laakso, I reiterate my strong opposition to the allegations in the report and the wording of the draft recommendation therein.  From the very beginning of our discussions on this report, Turkish members, as well as the Turkish Cypriot delegation, strongly objected to the title of the report, in particular the words “colonisation” and “settlers”.  The report is based on prejudicial data on the demographic structure in Cyprus, reflecting solely the  personal perceptions of the rapporteur and simply is partial.  Mr Laakso failed to make a proper establishment of the facts on the island.  He failed to take into consideration the events that took  place in Cyprus prior to 1974.

 

                 The limited number of workers, students, businessmen and retirees coming to the TRNC cannot be regarded as “settlers”.  They can in no way be compared to the thousands of immigrants mainly from Greece, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, Serbia and other countries who have come to  southern Cyprus since 1974.

 

                 I would like to refer  you to the two dissenting opinions attached to the report which also reflected and endorsed the standpoint of the Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians on the draft recommendation.

 

                 The draft recommendation in question calls upon the Committee of Ministers to instruct the European Population Committee to conduct a census on the island (in paragraph 7.i) .  The TRNC is an independent country, with all the institutions of statehood effectively functioning.  The validity of  legal arrangements and transactions conducted by the TRNC authorities has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.  Therefore, it is for the TRNC authorities themselves to conduct their  own census.

 

                 Regarding the point raised in the recommendation to the effect that “contacts and dialogue between civil societies of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities shall be promoted”, I again suggest that my colleagues carefully examine the positive effects of the latest decisions concerning border crossings taken by the TRNC Council of Ministers.  The latest positive developments have proven the goodwill of the Turkish Cypriots as well as Turkey to obtain a solution to the Cyprus issue.

I believe that these efforts should not be disregarded.

 

                 I must reiterate my objections to the two draft reports.  If they are to be approved as they stand, I do not think that this move can be considered in conformity with the principles of accuracy  and impartiality appertaining to the work of the Assembly. Thank you.

 

Posıtıve experıences of autonomıous regıons as a source of INSPIRATION for conflıct resolutıon ın Europe

 

Mr TEKELIOĞLU (Turkey). –I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has

done.  Academically speaking, I find the report well structured, clear and well targeted.  There are points in the report which I can also share.  The contrary is also true for some other points.

 

                 First of all, I do not personally think that the assumption that the concept of autonomy alone seems to be a sufficient concept to constitute a real source of inspiration for conflict resolution in each and every case.  Therefore, I agree with the view expressed by the rapporteur that, “…the solutions it (autonomy) offers are not universally relevant and applicable” and that “Autonomous status must always be tailored to the geography, history and culture of the area concerned, and to the very different characteristics of specific cases and conflict zones”.  Each and every situation should be treated separately as each has its own reasons and explanations.  On the other hand, as is acknowledged rightly in the report itself, some negative connotations which might emanate from the concept of autonomy should also be taken into account when considering the issue.

 

                 I do not deny the fact that there might be some positive examples of applications of the concept of autonomy.  However, I would rather be cautious in using terms such as “autonomy”, “regionalism” or “federalism”.  I fear that such concepts, if not properly implemented and adapted to the characteristics of a given situation, might turn into those whose possible consequences could, themselves, be a source of conflict.

 

                 I strongly share the view expressed in paragraph 18 of the draft resolution where emphasis is  put on the authority of state and the will and judgment of national parliaments in the interpretation, application and management of autonomy.  I believe that it is the right and the duty of a state and its parliament to exercise such a function.

 

                 The report also talks about cultural identity of a group and cultural diversity in the societies. I believe that cultural diversity can best be preserved within a state through mutual respect among individuals.  Talk about cultural diversity always comes with the notion of respect for different cultures among individuals within societies.  This respect, by definition, can be a vehicle in ensuring harmony in states between various cultures and traditions.

 

                 We could not, and should not, impose any pre-established schemes or parameters

     independently of the specific characteristics of each political situation.  From this angle, I share the view expressed in paragraph 17 of the draft resolution where emphasis is put on the necessity for a  “balanced relationship” within a state, and also the necessity of promoting “the principles of equality  and non-discrimination”.

 

                 As for a new legal instrument to attempt to deliver some legislative solutions to states facing internal conflicts, like the rapporteur, I am of the opinion that solutions to conflicts can be sustainable only if they are properly tailored to each specific situation.  Thank you.

 

TRAFFICKING IN ORGANS IN EUROPE

 

Mr Irfan GÜNDÜZ (Turkey). – First, I extend my thanks to the rapporteur for her comprehensive work on such an important issue.

 

           The common understanding of international society regarding the sale of human organs

emphasises its inhumane and unethical aspects. It is essential to address all concerns surrounding illicit organ trade, and possibly to establish an international mechanism to which all nations must adhere.

 

           The repercussions stemming from the lack of international laws regulating global human organ trade have caused worldwide upheaval. Human rights issues encircling the illicit human organ trade as well as the effects of the trade in eastern Europe should be examined and analysed.  In recent years, the rise in demand for organ donation has rapidly increased due to advanced medical technology and organ transplantation. We all know that poverty is the main motive of the trade. However, I agree with the rapporteur that the responsibility cannot belong only to donor countries. The trade depends on the demand.

 

           Despite rising awareness, commercial arrangements for organ transplants are nevertheless being undertaken, and so far there has been little success in preventing trafficking in human organs. Exploitation of human distress, particularly involving children and other vulnerable groups, should be prevented. Recognition of the ethical principles that condemn the buying and selling of organs for purposes of transplantation should be condemned in all circumstances.

 

           The Council of Europe, in close co-operation with professional health organisations, should introduce legislation urging its member states to take necessary measures for the prevention of all  practices that facilitate trafficking in organs.

 

           Unfortunately, as indicated in the report, Turkey is among the countries that are involved in trafficking in organs, and particularly in conducting transplantation. We expect to witness more concrete measures to be taken by the Turkish Government in the near future.

 

                      Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) said that he had been involved with the issue ever since he became a member of the Assembly. Each year thousands of people died from diseases which could only be cured through transplants. Since 2000, the Turkish Government had tried to bring transplant services up to  a high level and new regulations had been brought in. Transplant services in Turkey were overseen by  a special body and a centre for transplants had been founded in Ankara which was accountable to the Ministry of Health. Transplant services had been successfully improved and the number of transplants conducted each year had increased.

 

SITUATION OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

 

Mr TEKELİOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for preparing this important report. It is very  important that such reports should be unbiased.

 

           We are at the crossroads once again on the way to a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope that this time we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I want to focus on the plight of the refugees in the region. I am increasingly concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories, and the Palestinian refugees in that region and  the rest of the world. It is beyond doubt that aid is now urgently needed and that the situation has become a major humanitarian crisis.

 

           We have to consider various aspects of the life and conditions of the Palestinian refugee Communities in Europe, including the demographic, social and cultural characteristics of those communities, and we have to face different aspects of the problem, such as the issue of integration and adaptation, challenges to their cultural identity in the new societies, their legal status and the  effects on their lives of immigration policies in European countries.

 

           In fact, Europe was not a prime destination for Palestinian refugees in the beginning. They generally resorted to taking up residence in neighbouring Arab states, but the situation changed in the early 1970s as a result of both political turbulence in the aftermath of the 1967 war and the occupation of the remaining areas of Palestine. When the region became an area of conflict, there was further expulsion and dispersal of Palestinians.

 

           Today, it is estimated that there are more than 150 000 Palestinian residents in Council of Europe member states. The first communities that settled in Europe from the 1950s to the early 1970s are mostly well-integrated and highly educated professionals, which contrasts with the majority of the refugees who followed at a later stage, many of whom are unemployed and unable to get opportunities to improve their education.

 

           Aspects of the problem relate partly to the stringent immigration policies pursued by European countries in recent years. Such policies have deprived refugees of their sense of security, especially with regard to their legal status. That has also caused the identity crisis suffered by Palestinians in the diaspora. The dispersal of Palestinians and the absence of a Palestinian state adversely affect their sense of identity. We need to take initiatives to preserve their cultural and national identity.

 

           The region deserves peace, and I welcome the road map approved by the Palestinian and Israeli authorities. I hope that it will open the door to a peaceful solution to the conflict in the region.

    

However, it is obvious that, until the conflict in the Middle East is solved, the plight of the Palestinian refugees will continue to be on the international agenda. We must find ways to improve their situation, wherever they live. The activities of the UNRWA should be supported, as they will continue to be of central importance until the final solution of the conflict. I also welcome the idea of establishing a Palestinian refugee and displaced persons final status fund, under the aegis of the United Nations.

 

QUESTIONS TO NICOLAE DUDAU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF MOLDOVA AND CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

                

Mr Yüksel Çavuşoğlu,

 

                 Noting that in the judgments of Denizci and others dated 23 May 2001 and E?mez dated 21 December 2000 against Cyprus, the Court stated that the treatment was serious enough to be considered inhuman in respect of each applicant and concluded that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention,

 

                 Having in mind that in paragraph 73 of the report of CPT dated 15 January 2003

(CPT/Inf (2003) 1), it is stated that ‘in the light of all the information gathered in the course of the 2000 visit, the CPT has concluded that physical ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty by the police remains a serious problem in Cyprus.’”,

 

                 To ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers,

 

                 What are the measures requested by the Committee of Ministers and why these two

     judgments have not yet been implemented.”

 

                 I call Mr Dudau to reply.

 

                 Mr DUDAU. – As the honourable member is aware, the Committee is following closely the execution of the judgments in the E?mez and Denizci and Others cases against Cyprus.

 

                 During the last two years – in the period subsequent to the Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s visit in 2000 – the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of several measures to prevent new violations of Article 3 of the Convention. Thus the criminal and civil responsibility of state officials, and notably the police, has been increased and access to court for relatives of victims of inhuman and degrading treatment has been improved by also making relatives eligible for legal aid. In addition, important measures have been taken, including an extensive dissemination of information on The Convention requirements to all authorities concerned and training courses for the police and  others.

 

                 Furthermore, regarding the adoption of individual measures, the Committee has been informed that the Attorney General has appointed an independent criminal investigator to examine anew the merits in the applicants’ cases.

 

     I am therefore happy to assure the honourable member that the judgments have not remained without implementation. The Committee is currently examining whether the measures taken are sufficient or  whether additional measures are required.

 

POLITICAL PRISONERS IN AZERBAIJAN

 

Mr ATEŞ (Turkey). – I have read the report, and I must confess that I am surprised at some

of the remarks in it. It talks about the reconsideration of the credentials of the Azeri parliamentary delegation in September 2003, or a challenge to the credentials of the new delegation in January  2004. I find that entirely disproportionate.

 

                 I am of the opinion that the report exceeds its aim, as well as our general aim in the Council of Europe. Our main aim should definitely be to try to find ways of helping a new member country in its efforts to fulfil one of the most difficult, thorny and complicated obligations. Instead of pointing our fingers, we should extend our hands to countries in that position to help them to correct what is  wrong.

 

                 Since its accession to the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan has taken important steps to fulfil the commitments that it made to gain membership. That proves that it has the political will to fulfil its commitments. I support further initiatives to be taken by the Azeri authorities to continue in this direction.

 

                 My remarks also apply to the commitment undertaken by Azerbaijan on prisoners. I trust the efforts of Azerbaijan that are still being exerted to solve the problem completely. The retrial procedure in the cases of Guliyev, Humbedov and Hamidov is a positive process that should be welcomed.

 

     Azerbaijan has indeed met the request made to it in this regard.  Our Azerbaijani colleagues might feel indignation and display reactions. Personally, I find that understandable. I strongly believe that the Azeri people accept and trust in internationally accepted principles and the rule of law and have the intention and political will to act accordingly.

 

                 One should not forget that new members such as Azerbaijan need encouragement. We should adopt a more constructive approach, which I am sure would bear positive results. Co-operation  between Azerbaijan and the Council of Europe should be encouraged, and it is clear that such an aim cannot be achieved by advocating excessive, unnecessary and disproportionate measures against the country.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS HELD IN CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IN AFGHANISTAN OR GUANTONAMO BAY

 

Mr Yüksel ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey). – I thank the rapporteur for his work. As I believe that the protection of human rights is at the heart of all democratic states, I agree with the concern

expressed in the report about the human rights of those held in custody in Afghanistan and

Guantanamo Bay. I agree particularly with what is said in paragraph 1.c about the plight of children who are detained. Children should not be subject to detention or any other degrading treatment in any circumstances, even those described as a “last resort”. The status of persons detained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay should be determined much more clearly, so that their rights can be  observed properly and adequately.

 

                 I am also concerned about the death penalty, which constitutes the most serious affront to human dignity and life. Its removal from the legislation and practices of the countries concerned, and the creation of a death penalty free area throughout the Council of Europe member states – as well as states with Observer status – is one of the basic aims of our Organisation.

 

                 I agree with what the report says about conditions of detention. If they do not meet

internationally recognised norms and standards, they should immediately be improved. We are concerned about allegations of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. I sincerely hope that the facts will prove us wrong, but it is clear that the Third Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war should apply to all prisoners held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, with no  distinction or discrimination.

 

                 I believe that needs and inadequacies should be clearly established so that necessary measures can be taken. I agree with the report that the International Committee of the Red Cross  should be given access, and that its recommendations should be followed.

 

                 Human rights should be protected at all times, in all consequences and at any price. No distinction, discrimination or exception should be allowed.

 

ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Mrs BİLGEHAN (Turkey) welcomed the debate on the environment and human rights and

thanked the rapporteur for his report. The Assembly was the driving force in protecting the

environment and human rights to which Turkey, like other countries, had attached high importance.

Turkey and other countries, such as France and Sweden, had special references to the rights of the environment in their domestic law. The problem could not be solved by state-level solutions alone, but required international action. Work to produce a new protocol on environmental protection should take into account the differences in the domestic law of member states, but should also promote consistency in national legislation on the subject.