. ;

-·

. ·': ' ..... •:

. · .;'

... "'"\.. ·! .

·• 1-xtt •.

S2•S26 02.:2

/ '>···

',7'. < < < • • <

· CO~MITIEE.OF MtNISTERS '~ ; :.. ,· • > > •• t . ' : " \, . ' .

':"'"

.... ,

' . .

\ •·"'

;.

<. {

f,.

·. I.

lor dtstrtbutton· -i;c;: Beads · · o(:P•lesatt.O!l. ;~Y: ·· : ·

•• <

._.,,

<·

. .. _. '· '/ ?,:

·. if { ·.~.. ,. l

. } . ... -. . ~~.,..

• .. . ~ :

: -~ : ·, i'

, .

'. .... :.· ..

···\: ·•. '•

·":'·' . ~\r • · .

'

< ~··.

\-.·'

. . .. '' .-,,

. Aunt;· i97.6j,.·' 1 al)d .1.SQ'l · .. , ~. . . · . ·

. \:

.. ; .

' ·'

.

i

SECRET

.. 3 .. CM./Del/ Concl (77). 27 6 > . Addend uta

The Ambassador of Greece, as his custom, made a long statement at our meeting in September1 harshly criticising the content of the text of a reply from . my Governi:pent, reproducedin the Conclusions 0~ the d~scussiOt1S on this item in 'jurie 1977. In a short· intervention at that· meeting I· reserved our attitude for·a possible reply to these criticisms, saying that I 1~~hed to send the olficial' text of the. statement by the Greek Ambassador to our 11inistry of Foreien Affairs folf examination, and for a reply, if it were deemed necessary. However, I am unable today to present·· any such reply frw my l".d.nistry to tbe Corrmitt~e owing to the delay in the distribution of 'theCon~lusions of the September·meeting, which reached us only 2 day~· ago.

/

I will confine myself~ in this· first statement, to drawing· the COmmit,~eets · attention to these two procedural anomalies."

'The Repre'se~t:atiye ·of Greeee oade the fol~~ng ·~?tatement:

"I ao not sW:-elwhether my Turkf'sh colleague has oerely r.1ade: sane. observations on the system we adopted with the consent of the persons directly conce~~d. or whether he~has alSo made (=request concerning tJ;\e';proeedure· to'-'be followed. I should be very grateful to hira if he could clarify. this· point, Which· · · · · is .still unclear to oe •. I was scneWhat surprised,. Mr Ghairman, to hear . , my Turkish colleagile ·c;·c:riplain of 'the procedure followed so fa~ for recording our deliberations,· as it was adopted by cailiOOn agreement. Thet;efor~· his . rather belated observation surprises r.1e, and I wonder what its ·purpose is. Could it be that the Turkish Government has not yet prepar~d any rejoirldel to c'ur cbocrvn.tior:.~ at tlic recent ::~cc·::i::::;::: nncl is· tryinz to justify ii:self'· .JY referring to what was rightly or wrongly done in the past?"

~ . ; . .., . The Representati~e:of Turkey.made the follo~~ng s~a~~ment:

11 'lh~ Am~assaq~r of _Greece has; ·deservedly, tlY; t'c:;)·:tr:.·t~on o.£, boh;,::; an inte~iicent and' shrewd diplomat. I am certain he has u~..:!~rstood. v~ry ,well .wi"iat I me~i}t •.. lle follow his interventions each time lvith great interest and attention, and to save time, we send. the note~? :we take during the . . .. . . .. discussions to our .Adffi.nt'stra.tion~ W'it,thout awaitirt~-~h;e Conciusi_ell~:J~u~· much later, when we are at last in possession of the Conclusions, we.find· that the text of our notes does not correspond to t:l1e text final;zeq ._.in. . . the meantirae by the persons cond;~rned, especially .. the· Greek Ambassador, · · and published in the Co~clusions. To give :rou only a small .example_. I would point out that· the not very cout:·teous term used. _several tiraes l;>y ·Ambassador· Kaobalouris, describing the Turl~ish Government Is He.-norial as na''riion~nt · of absurdities'',. among· other nq·t very dipi'oinatic descriptive w~rds' did' . not appear in the· Conclusions.

As regard.s_ my being una~le to px:esent oy Governlll:entt s reply· to tl).cr'C.OilJllittee today, ·I ·was 'by no oeans. apolop,isin& ·.to. the Comoittee for this •. I was .explaining to it the ,r6Qsooo .Which prevented us fi:oo preparing such a re.ply~ I~ there is any responsibility to pe assigned in the matter, then it h'es exclusively with the Ambassador of Greece, for 1 t is his way of doing things .that fs· the cause of the delay in preparinc the Conclusions."

'Ihe Bel,ian Representative said that his authorities had canpleted of tfie i!e. They had formulated the following draft decision, and with partners had shown that a nuober of delegations were prepared this text, namely&

examination contacts to endorse

ctifDcil/Conc1(77)276 Addendw

SECRET

n'lll.e Committee of 1-iinisters has e:tamined applications m.tnbers 6780/74 and 6950/75 filed by the Republic of Cyprus after the events of 1974.

It has likewise taken into consideration the Cocndssionis report as well as the memorial of the Republic of Turkey on the question of Human Rights in Cyprus.

The Committee finds that ccartain events which occurred in Cypr~s constitute violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Consequently, ·it asks that measures be taken in order to put·an end to such violations as might continue. to occur and so that such events are not repeated.

In this respect, the Committee of Ministers consi~ers. that the enduring protection of Human Rights in Cyprus calls for the re•establishment of peace and confidence between the two Communities on the island.

It therefore strongly urges the .parties to reswe interecmmunal talks with the minic.w of delay.

I

If in 9 months' time the situation so requires, the Committee reserves the right to place this matter again on its agenda, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32. of the Convention."

T11e Representative of Greece made the following statement1

'~n view of this development and the fact that we have been caught unawares by this text \1hich has just been placed before us, I :should like to ask the parties directly concerned,. naoely the Government: ·of Cyprus and the Government of Turkey, whether they rieed a little while to examine this text and think about it. If that .is the case, the sitting should perhaps be adjourned, if only for a few minutes." ·

The Chairman proposed adjourning the meeting for 5 minutes to give delegations time to study the draft decision.

The Representative of cxg~us made the following statement:

"I. have no. objection if you adjourn for 5 r.1inutes. I wonder though whethe~ 5 minutes will be sufficient to conclude consideration of this text which has just been circulated to delegations. I do not .. know if all delegations have had notice of this draft beforehand, but this delegation, which is the delegation directly concerned, has not. I suppose that the position of this delegation is understood by the other- delegat-ions if I .say that I shall find it extreracly difficult to tFlke a po.sitio~ in 5 minutes. I shall have to submit it tony · gove~ent; it will have to be considered and I will have to receive instructions on it. I .wonder whether 5 minutes would be the solution."

The meeting was adjourned for five minutes.

SECRET

- 5 • GH/Del/Concl(77)276 Addendum

The Representative of c;aarus ~ade the following statement:

"I -am grateful .:.eor the. Comnti.t:teets generosity. I have: had th~ 5 minutes as you said and I _have had another look at the text. I see in the last,paragraphthC~,t: it is suggested that the question will be examined on the basis of ArtiC!le 32 later on. Do I take it that this is a· new procedure? Do I take it that there is an intention of postponing t;he application .of Article 32 for 9 months? Is this in other words an i~terim decision of this Cormttce? 1-fe shall have to· apply Article 32 and I. v10nder whether the intention is to establis1r a new procedure 'tmer~by t-he application of Article 32 is postponed by 9 raonths. _-It \i.s s.~thing on whicili I shall have to seek instructions and to consult my governoent. -It is an irJ.portant questi.on not -only for rJ.y goVernment-, but for all governments. Have we really considered it with due respect of the merits of the case? Have we really considered carefully what we ar~- doing? .I·s half an hour or until this afternoon sufficientf Are we not: ~:ry.ing to hurry matters up unduly'l I really think that we sho~ld ~ave another.look at it."

The Representative of .~kez made the following statement:

. !, ~'1 _a),._so believe tha_t the meeting should be adjourned .not just for ten· minutes, but for at least half an hour. That will enable us to examine the te3tt -of the draft in grea·ter depth and Hr.Pilavachi will' be' able to c0p.t~ct: his-authorities by Lelephone. The latter iua'de a number of critical remarks about one of the chapte-rs in our l-1emorial in June and said that ten r:dnutes would be enough for me. to have the nece.ssary · · telephone conversation with the President· of; the Turkish Communi,ty; info~ llr .• Dentash of the text .of his crit~cisr.1s and obtain his ~·reacti·ons~ · Qn,that occasion-! hesitated. to make you lose your.valuable time'by. · replying to Hr .• Pilav.achi •. But the time has cane for me to rem.ind him' that -_aut9matic telephone COtl'IL1unications in the Turkish Cypriot sector of·tpe, island 't:lere cut off a lone while ago by the Greek Cypriot ·authorities, whi-lst :t-1r. Pilavachi can telephone Nicosia in a· few'mi.nui:es.' ·· whenever he needs to• I must also rCl'J.ind my young colleague that when · practising the art of diplomacy, careful thought is necessary before · putting random ideas to an opponent, because sarre hasty initiatives are like boomerangs which ~ay c.ompletely change course and rebOU:'h.d. on .. t.~¢. person who, ehe.erfully t,tttercd them." t51f The Representative of Greece asked the following question:

"I have a procedu;ral observ-ation to make. It was s.ai_d that this draft resolution was distributed to some delegations which, after studying it, are ready to support it •. I· should like to ask the Representative· of Belgiun if that -is really so·, if I have.<understood properly·.,"

The Be,la~an R~presentative repeated that contacts \'Tith partners hatl shoWh that a mr.1ber of delegations were prepared to endorse the draft decision:.

C1l/Del/Co"Qcl(77) 276 Addendw ·

SECRET

.. 6 -

The Representative of Greece made the following statement&

"He are a COiillllittee required to take a decision und·er the Convention on Human Rights, and as a Committee we are one and indivisible. No splitting: up of procedure is acceptable. vie .all have equal rights, and we should all be treated in the sarJe way. It is inconceivable that, outside this foru;n and without any deliberation having taken place, scme members of the Commdttee should have met on the initiative of one governoent and prepared. a text which they are now submitting to the C~ttee as a ldtole. Need !.remind anybody that we are acting in this case as a supervisory body of the Convention on Human Rights and that as such we are bound by indivisible solidarity. Such a method of restricted consultations oisht . be justified if we, were discussing general problems relating to our agenda, but it can in no event be justified in the present case. That is why I consider this procedure unacceptable.

To dispel all doubt, I wish to make it clear that my delegation and I have just seen this text for the first ttme, and I consider it natural that the parties directly concerned should be able to ask for a short period of reflection and meditation.

However, my delegation will refuse to consider a text which was communicated to sa:~e delegations and not to others. I regard this as a matter of principle"

The Representative of ~rkez said that his delegation had just seen the te~ct for the first time. It was natural that the parties directly concerned as well as those indirectly concerned should be able to ask for sace ~ime to think about the text. He -.;qas not therefore altogether against the proposal to adjourn the discussion to enable tile t~t to be studied more fully. After.a quick glance at the text, he did not think he would be able to vote in favour of. the text, particularly because of the '\<tording of a mmber of paragraphs in the draft. But, he continued, what surprised him most was the protest by a mr.1ber of Deputies who claioed that a draft resolution could not be prepared and presented to the Committee without first consulting all the Deputies~ It was customary in all international fora for ~raft resolutions or recocmendations to be prepared by one country or a group of countries. •

The Netherlands Representative said it was not uncommon for a number of delegations to meet and draft a text for subsequent submission to the Cocndttee. There had never been any question of discrimination in this case.

The Representative of Greece raade the following statement:.

111 asked a moment ago that we might hear the Director of Human Rights • . This is a question of procedure, and I consider that questions of procedure should cane before any discussion. Uy intervention is.not air.1ed at either su~orting or rejecting the text, as I have not yet had ttme to study it thoroughly.

SEC!1ET

- 7 - CM/DelfC9ncl(77)276 Addendlll:l. ·

But I should like to know if I too i.1ave a right to prepare a text, to draw up a draft atl".endment, either on GY om1 or in consultation with some Deputies· only. vfuat is there to stop ne doine this?".

The C,hairna~ sa~4.t~t the Director of Human Rights could be asked a question a0out the t:.1erits of. the case but not about a point of procedure.

The ~epresentative o~·~~1 Paid that his delegation also intended to propose s~e ap£ndments to the text suocJitted by the Belgian delegation,. and that; he thought it opport1,1ne· to raakc this statet;1ent at this stage in the debate, before the Director of Huoan Ri&1ts spoke.

The Representative of Greece made the following staterJent:

"I am sorry, 11r Chairr..an, but I waited for my TurJ,<.ish colleague to speak so that I could also have the privilege of hearing the Director of Human Rights. But ·you have given the ans'tt1er yourself, you have taken the place of the Director of Human Rights; well, I aci ar~ious to hear the Director of Human Rights, lir Chairman, and I insist. I am sorry to have to say that I canno.t understand why in such an it:l.portant case as this a delegation should be denied the right to put a question to the Director of Human Rights, who is here precisely for that purpose. If the question has already been asked, I have a right to ask it again. That is ny inalienable right, and it cannot and must not be denied me by anybody, Mr Chairman; there is no ruling on this."

At 11 am the debate on this item was adjourned until t:J.idday.

* * *

The Representa,tive of ,Pnrus mde the following statement:

''l<Te have tried to contact our. Foreign lliriister who. is of course interested in this matter. As you know, he is now at the United Nations and because of the time it wa~ not possible to speak with hiu. · I suppose it is early in the r:<orning in New York now. We have nevertheless conveyed, of course, the text to the Hinistry. They have read i't with interest and they would like to have time to consider it. You can of course realise that it was not possible within one hour to take a stand on such an important matter. I would like to associate myself entirely with what was said an hour ago by. the Greek Ambassador. regarding consultation. vJe do not think it is norr.:~al practice to have partial consultations in this·Committee, especially .when these consultations exclude ·::l1e interested parties. I do not see how th~s method has been applie~. It h~s never been done in the past and t~e

CH/Del{Coric1(77)276 Addendum

SECRET

- e -

more important the question, the more the need for consultation. vTe have not been party to these consultations which probably have taken a few days. How can one expect me today, now, to take a stand on this text? 1 hope and 1 am sure that the delegates present realise the burden and the difficulties in wl~ich they put me. 1 would b~g them to consider my P?Sition in the same way that they have always considered each other's position on an inportant question, or even on uinor questions. Therefore 1 beg them, and 1 beg you all, to put yourselves in my position. 1 have not been able to ·contact my Hinister. I have not been able to receive instructions. It.has'been just one hour, and I ask for an adjourmnent until our next meeting in November."

The Representative of France suggcs; ed e.djournins the discussion to the follol!ri.ns day, so ;.:hat~tl1e Representa·:.:ivc of Cyprus could contact his Linistcr in the r:;canti:-.:e.

T:1e Jlepresentativc of C_xprus Lade t~~e follO'ti'ing s tatemcnt:

II'J!:..iS deleeation haS ah1ays Sb.OtVU f;OOUUill aliU itS desire tO Co-Operate. 1 do not t:1ink it \vill be possible, in all :Jue frankness and respect to cy French colleague, ~:o Lake a stand today even if I have the chance in a couple of hours ;ken it is ea:rly in the r:,orning in Ne-.;J York, to npeak vnth r.:y l~inister. As I said before t:~:is is an important question. It t·1ill have l.:o be discussed at a number of levels in ny govermnent as you can realise, and I do not think it will be possible to take a stand before our next meeting."

The Representative of .T~rkc.z expressed surprise that Er. Pilavachi should nov7 l!rant to adjourn the discusnion, wL::n at the previous r:teeting he had er:1p:1asised the urgent need to take a decision at that very meeting.

The Representative of PZErus made the following statement:

11In reply to tlhat the distinguished Ar;J.bassador of Turkey has said 1 vmuld like to say that I have been pressing for a decision since February. Not in June or in August, or in Septe1:1ber. I uas already pressing for a decision in February. 1 uas pressi'ng for a decision on the basis of Article 32, to apply Article 32, and this is t~at I ar.1 still doing,. For this reason t~1is delegation cannot take a stand rigb.t now because I am afraid that it is not entirely on the basis of this Article t:wt this draft is before us. For this reason I ask for the adj ournrn.ent.n

n1e Representative o£ T.ur~e,;:: raade the follm;ring statement:

111 understand l1r. Pilavachits reasoning. Actually, he asked for a vote in February on tvhat he t;ranted the COti.1Illi ttec to vote on and did so by categorically refusing Turkey the right to defend h~,rself, to prepare a :t-1emorial. And 't1hen that had been done l,1e tried to arrange for the vote to take place before the Turkish. Governr:J.entts Hemoria.l had been exarained by the governments of the t:ember States. Today - no~1 that an examination in depth of all the political, legal and historical aspects of the file concerning all the problems of the tl!TO

corumunities has been cor.1pleted - J:.:lr. Pilavachi wishes to hold up the vote because the results of that examination c.re not 't·Jhat his authorities and the Greek government expected and hoped for.H

SECRET

.. 9 .... CH/Del/Concl (TJ):276 Acldendu:a

The Reprtisentative ·of. Greece oade. the following statement: . . .,. . .. ~

''ltlr Chai~n; if.I have understood correctly, two adjournrtlent proposals have ·been mad~.-· one by the Belgian delegation, the other by the C:yprio:t; delegation.''

The. Cha'itnan s·aid that the Reptesentative of Belgian had no.t prol>()sed. a.n . ., .! l

: ·'

The Represe'ntative of Greece spoke as follows:

"I did .not he?r then; that wa's lv-hy I llanted clarification.

l1r Chai:qnan.1 allo"t-:r r..1e ~ow to make s~ observations on this question of .. an adjournment as we are precisely on~ tfle subject o.f an adJ?iirnment,. a;r·e we not? I believe that fror:. the procedural point of vie\·1.. we have searcely reached the stage of adjout-ning or n:ot adjourning the case.;. we thuf b,.ave . . two adjournf.~er1t pr'oposats before us - ~me· by the Representative of Cy'pj:.us asking fpr an· adj6ur.t1Dent t:o ncx·t month, the other b:r the French delegit'tion asking 'for a: adjourmaent to tar.orrow"' • · · · · . . ·

' ~ ' . . . The Repres·enta'i:iv~ o.f Fran6e ~~hdre'tv his proposal to adjourn the. a;scuss~on'

···for·· 2'4 hours. ' ·· , ·~ ~ '

The Represet].tattye of Greece· ma~e· the fo'llowing stateruent:

'~lr Chai.rmaii., we. now have only ·one·' adjournr~ent proposal, that of. the deleg~tiono£ Cyprus·, wl{:i.eh is 'for a postpon~~nt to next r.1onth, to our next:meeting ...

. • • ·' '•·• " 'I· . . ' ·. • , w

·. · ; . .·: I : . ,:·· .. ··

For my pa:t;F, I .~upport the Cypriot. delega~ion's proposal, as it' seec5 t.o· me quit~ itladmissible to· distribute to us at th~.'last r.1inute a text on · which we are asked to •take a hasty decision; in short, to deal with the case perfunct9rily whereas for·'a year ·we h~we don6 no~hing el~e .but gran,t the Turkish dele·gation. respites.· At the beginning we ·granted it. ;respites because it th,ougl1t that :the juncture v1as 't1ot favourable, because _there : was no.trl;'nsl~tion by the Secret_<il:'iaq _.then we allowedAt:respi:.~esto submit'a 'Hemorial, a Hemorial vTh~ch it took,, thre~.mpnths>t9. s~bmit and which has n6t even been d.iscusse~· in· this,.;fOl;'ttnoi"' There has riot been any .deliberation on the Hemorial because,' apart ~roo· the Cypriot delegation and my own delegation, nobody has presented.any observations on the text •

. 'lhus a pe~iod Qf 'one year has elapsed b;/ yi,itue of a. ~er:tain procedure,. which wa·s · it!,J.po~ed on us;. and ~;rhich we gras:t'ously accepte,cr: in ? . spirit of co-operati6n. Today, for the first time, we have had a reaction from a nu:nber of delegations - unidentified ones, incideritally .:. which it seems fr.om the statements by the Repreaentative of Belgium, have studied this te:ct and are ready to accept it ..

Quite apart from the contents of the text, on which I do not wish to pass judgement, I think that the procedure in this particular case is defeetive. The delegations which have not seen the text and have not had the privilege of assisting in its preparation should at least be given enough time to study it, and the governments concerned should be able to think about the case. Any other procedure v1ould seem to me to be un unqualifiable method,

ai/Del/co~ci(77)276 Addenduc

SECRET

~ 10 ~

unprecedented in thiS forum. It was also said that Article 32 has not been applied, and I share this opinion of our Belgian colleague, supporting the recark by the Representative of Cyprus that the"applicat;ion of Article 32 has been disregarded: I believe that Article 32 is quite precise, it only has to be read, which I do not ask you to do; but 1 think that with a modicuc of cc:inconsense and intelligence we can appreciate that we are a long way frao the application of Article 32. In the text presented to us it is s.aid that .the Comoittee will perhaps see later uhether Article 32 should be applied, but that for the ~aJent it is considered that Article 32 should be left aside. This is a hybrid and laconic decision which says absolutely nothing except that at same later date we ~i&1t perhaps give our attention to Article 32,. · ; ·

I should like the delegation whicl1 presented this text to explain to us at least why things have now suqdenly becooe urgent and uhy this text was prepared so hastily. For .uhat reasons should we nm~ take so hurriedly a decision that is contrary to the spirit of the Convention and to the letter of Article 32,and is contrary to the oain ai~s we are pursuing in the political field for .a settlec.ent of the Cyprus case? For it is otil.y., as 1 have often repeated, by dealing with the proble~s resulting fran the violations of hucan rights that we can provide a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus question. It is not by car.1ouflaging or trying to evade · unavoidable problems that we shall arrive at a just and equitable. solution which we all uant, particularly the governments concerned. For these reasons, cy delegation thinks that it is not asking cuch to request a postponement of this decision so that the governments which, like cine, have not seen this text or studied the reasons for its submission cay exa~ne these matters objectively and c~operatively. To act differently would be to deprive certain governments of their most sacred right of defence and to prevent thee from displaying the indivisible solidarity which should be ours; a decision taken at short notice, without any pr~paration, examination or investigation is a flagrant violation of our principles.

I do not l'nsh to say any more at the r.1aoent, but I do think that the proper conduct. of our proceedings and. above all a sense of responsibility requ$-re that we should give everybody t~e to form an opinion, as we shall be collectively. responsible for any judgement and any decision reached. Even the delegations which did not take part in the deliberations held outside this Committee will, by virtue of their participation in the system for the protection of h~.~n rights, be involved in this case.

In conclusion I lo7ould ask the com.ni.ttee t-o have regard to its respondbilities and duties, for it is fo~ us to procote and uphold what is still alive . and sound in this institution, namely the protection of hucan rights. I should not like th.i$. forum, which has been a place of noble ideals, to become the tomb of human rights."

- 11 - ct:/Del/Concl(77) 276 t.ddendur.1

The Representative of Cypr.~s r.1ade the following statement:

"I can only construe Article 32 as making it ,imperative on the Conmittee l>mich is functioning ¥.rithin certain linits to say at least which are the violations which were found to have been established, especially in a case like the present one where the \>Thole case before the COClrtdttae of Ministers has been based on applications and the report of the COO'.lission of Huoan Rights finding violations by Turkey in respect of a nu:.1ber of articles., There are r:1any articles such as Article 8, Article 5, Article 2, 3 etc. It is not only necessary to know which violations the Corrlttce of Hinisters finds to have been established for the purposes of Article 32, but i.t is also a s,i.ne, ,9,.tfl non for .. the operation of all the follol-rlng provisions of Article 32. ·When the Comr.littec cooes to paragraph 2 it will have to decide 't~hat measures must be taken to remedy the violations that it has found to have been established. I wonder, without knowing which are the violations that have, according to your judgement, been €Stablished, how can you specify the oeasures: to be taken, or how can the gullty party, in this case obviously TUrkey, direct her intention to a p~rticular remedy• Is it a oeasure t.o prevent further ill treatr.ient? Is it a measure to allow refugees to go back horn.e? v7hat is it? But tl:ifsdecision may obviously give rise to general confusion when there is no specification as to 't-Thich are the violations. That iQ one of the many points that arise with regard to the conforoity of this decision 'tnth Article 32, that need sot:J.e consideration. I do riot exclude other argt.lnents or other points. I reserve my right to corae back to the same subject later on."

The Belgian Repr~sentative. said that, in his Governoentl s view.-. the draft decision came ~olly within the context of Article 32 of the co·nvention and that he was therefore opposed to postponing consideration'o~ the draft decision. · ·

The Representative of Turk~y made the following statement:

"The Ambassador of Greece has just said literally; ''We have always kindly given Turkey unreasonable time limits.' I should lik~ to reminq you, Mr. Chairman, that we never asked for. unreasonable time limits. Those given us by the Conmittee Were no longer than the periods granted,in other sithilar cases in the past to other m<:mlber States. I presented a long repox:t, the result of a ntt:lber of months ef serious and.detailed work, on 17 11ay 1977., I have always respected'my comt.litrilents'towards the Cor.un:l.ttee. And since that date·! waited expectantly without ·"\<lking. any further request for a tbi<: limi~ and I was always ready to co-operate l-Tith the Committee• When the Atn~ssador of Greece solemnly says that he 1kindly granted oe unreasonabl? tine limi·ts' he is probably·jokillg, because in fact he granted nothing at all. On every occasion he voted against the Conunitteets decif?ions."

SECRET

CYJDel/Cbnc1(77) 216 ': - 12 -Addendum

The Representative of Cy,erus made the following s.ta:tement:

' f . . -

"An extra reason for th~ ·adjournment. is. for delegations to ·reflect on our views which have. be~n eicpressed by Mr Loucaides, a while ago. We feel that this decision ts· riot in s'trict confondty with ·Article 32. The Comciittee I am sure· will· consider. in a- proper way the views . that have been expre~sed. I have ri~ reason to believe that~ delegatiOns do not want to ~pply ·Artic~e .· 32. As regards the remark by the Rep~esentative of Belgiun, I·dq.not really thitik'it is very difficult. for ·one to · ·. pass a j¢g~Emt as to whe~h~r,-Art~~le_ 32 has been strictly ·appl~ed ... · · · or not, but ·nevertheless ddegatiohs will have amp~e tirJ.e to ~onslder· the matter afresh .... WJ..\:h .y.oUr pemission, Mr L6ucaides col4d ~upplement his earlier statement. u · · · · ' · · · !

. ~ . ,•

"I would like to repeat the· reason for the adjourment,· if I may• The reason is' tha~ this delegation'which is directly concerned with this case has only had kn6w1edge of the draft which is before us Since 10.30 this morning.· This delegation has not had the chance to camm~icate the text to· t;he l'linister; This delegation has not had the chance.· .· . ·7 '·}

to deliberate, to' consider t.t and to take a. stand on ·it. For this· ._·,, reason we have ~sked tC? 'be given the chance, being a directly __ concerned c~untry in this iiiffair,-, to ~tudy the matter at our next meetins· ·irt .. November. · · · '· · · · ..

The Representative of Greece ~ade the folloWing staten~nt: -· ... .;

., ' • ,, I ' • • ' .•

"As ::he app~icati(:m of Article ,32 is. under discussioJl, I sh.opld: like ... w.e~ •:-". remind the COnnit;t~- that .. it.has .<>n.vari.ous occasions adopted rules on the:··· application of' Article 32. In nbn~ of these rules 'J:iave·· I' been abl~ t.o discern any procedure corresponding to the one we are following today. I therefore wonder whether these rules are to be disr~garded, just like the ~pirit and letter of Article 32. I i:hirik we are al:l'· farei1iar, or should be familiar, w.ith the#le rules ~rhich were apopted on various occasions and .. , on different dates and which· cons'd.tute and are regarde4 as su}?stantive rules for the application .of Article 32 •. There has not been .any· ~eliberation_.'~ as there has not been any .ti:eans of clarifyfng the views whereby s.ane del:eg~ti'pn have ui1:1p1.1:t~d tllC facts,. :1ev~ uisputed i:h~ rcpor '-=• .Cnc o;.1ly needS to ,l1.0tC .that the volurein~us repOrt by the Turkish Gpver~ent; challenging everything done by the Commission,·. ha_.s not be.eJl ~ommented on by any del'egation. ~ot. . a single delegation has said ei.ther that what '-1as. pr~sented by Tu.rkey reflec~s a certain- truth .pr~. conversely, that these are facts _bearing no· rela,tion · · to reat'ity, .. T'.ais has created doubt about' the: procedure followed by the . C()t!L'li.SS:Lon· •. ·Because i ~ .did not. pard.cipa_te .o .. r rather· re'fused ~o .p~rticipat~e . in the C~ssion•~ proceedings, a.s it o.ught to· have done ·.under Article 28 of the Conventi~·on at the. initial stage of the application, Turkey ... subsequently dissociated itself from the Commfssion, which performed its·. task in accordance with the statutory provisions and a long-established practice based on numerous cases judged both by the Comndssion and by the Court of Human Rights. This doubt affected some of the goverm1ents represem.~d here and created an aribicuity ·because the··Turkish Govcrnt:lCnt did not uant to co-operate "t>7ith the Comr.:d.ssion. Everything has been disputed • the establishment of the facts and subsequently the findings in the Commission's report.

-- .... ~ ,...

•.

:JECRET

- 13 - Cl.i/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendum

It is surely giving encouragement to governments Which violate human rights to grant ther,\ a dispensa::ion whenever they fail to co-operate with the organs established to deal ,,..f th such violations. lJe are thus giving every government ~rhich does not co-operate with this institution's organs an oppor~:unit:y to go its own T.tre..y and to succeed one day in convincing the insti tutiont s other members thac:: for reasons of so-called good policy and e'tpediency we should pass in silence over everything that exist:s.

There is an order by the Court of Human Rights which e:tplains why and how the Con1mission is master of its own procedure. The cor,mdssionts procedure is unchallengeable, and the application ·of Article 28 is part of that procedure. That is why it is inadmissible that some governn~ents should acquit Turkey siri1ply because it was not present throughout the procedure, by giving it as it were the benefit of the doubt. Turkey cannot be e:~empted froo the rules to which it has itself subscribed and -.:rhich it regards as applicable in all circumstances. This is a serious !,latter, because by taking such a decision, if orily provisionally, we would be setttng a dangerous preced~n>: for ::his organisation and for the institution of ht111an rights. It is not a ·:juest~on of condemning Soti1eone before this authority, as I have often said and repeated; it is a question of repairing the damage done.· That was so in the judgement we delivered in the case of the 31 East-African Asians and in other previous cases. Hhat 't-7/lS important in the present case was to ascertain the r~spondent par.!::y" s desire to try by all t'lleans, even provisional ones, to repair the damage, to redress the· situadon; . but there has not been any evidence of such a desire, for in Cyprus i:he violations are continuing,. the evil is being perpetuated, the trouble still exists, and this state of affairs can only poison relations between·riei&1bouring and friendly countries. · ·

That is why I consider that the procedure taking place before our Committee has .no precedent but is undoubtedly setting one.. I really cannot see, therefore, 't-Thy we should today deliberate on a text which was spr1Jllg on us at ·the last minute. This is not taking a decision but having one extor::.ed from us. No delegation wi ;:h. a sense of responsibility could approve such a r.-,ethod. If I myself were obliged' by -my government to approve such a tr:ethod, I "t:70Uld give up my p~si tion.

\'e are the custodians of an order without which \ve could not survive: the present-day world is torn asunder in u,any spheres, and we should also ponder on wha:.: is happening ou~~side the forum .. It is not: possible ·for us to stand by passively in the face of the violation of t:he freedoms we are defending. Other goverr.ments v1hich have been the subject of petitions, notably -::he British Government, have in similar cases cried by all the means at their disposal to redress the sitUation. In the case with wich we are concerned at present, this has unfortunately not been done, and even so an attempt is being made to extort a meaningless decision from us.

~1[Del/Concl(77)276 Addend \.In

.. •.

SECRET

- 14-

I have not had the pleasure today o.f b.earipg our Director of Human Rights. answer a; question l put. to hi.Jl.1: :through you, Mr Ct"lairraan. Even if I had asked, the. S~I!Je' question for .the hundredth ti~e, I shall not insist. But I must d~~w my conclysiops frora this, regardless of what will happen. I consider- that a par-~ from. the proceduraL problem I r_aised. this morning there are many other problems which might seriously concern us at present. Since we .. have a ,p;rocedural problel!l· I co1.1sider there is only Ol\e way· for. us .~o d~l!-1 with.it.~Il a, dianitied fashion, and. that is- to adjo~n the ~as~ as has been proposed-•by the ··!ielegation· of cyprus,. whi~h ~?ltggesteg_:a period: of on~. month. .A ,moment ago my Tu;rkish colleague retnc:1rked ·that I );lad vqted ag~inst adj.out;nments on principle'! I wish to emphasise ;:hat this was n_ot . . ~o, .b.ut that l,.,voted in thj;it way whenever•we were asked_ £0; unjustifiable respites •.. But. today that is. not the case. I should like to know what : would have happened_if the Turkish, delegation had been_pre~ented with a,: ....

__ draft resolution a few m9nths _ag~. and bee11 asked to approve it immediat,ly • . -. :· -t·,\ . .

T.he minim~, decision we should take today is to allow the Cypriot delegati9n sane extra· ttme, otherwise any dis.cussion would result in dea4lock _Which- · mieht: be .fatal to the future of this institution."

. . . . ~ ·- . ·. . The Representative of. TUrk~f was l!.gainst the propRSals to the ·.effect that the. ·vote on -the draft ~ecis on~ s~ould be clefe~red until a later, dat;e and he added that his negative attitude.towards such proposals certainly•did not mea~ that he. would-vote for the draft if:a vote. ~retaken today.

The Chairoan called for an indicative vote on the adjoUrnment of·the discussion ·until the Novecber ·r.1eeting of the Deputies. T.he final vote could t~ke place at the begi1-,~iflg of. the afternoon ..

The Bjlgian Representative proposed thl!.t the 2nd indicative vote be.follo~d tmmediat~ly by a final vote.

' The Representative of Gre~ce n1ade -the following statement•

"I just wish to take note of the fact that this is the first time in such an important _mat.ter that I have seen tile delegation ,hich presented a. text obj~ct ;ti() an i~dicati,ve vote being ta~en. This promP.t~ me to reflect 4eeply on its raot:lves.. ,,. '

The~e is no rule to prevent_ us· from taki,~g an indicative vo~e on procedural or any other ques-:::ions; . we are entirely free to ta~e in4i-ca~ive votes .. on ally questi~_raised, _pa~ticularly 't-7hen, as in the present .case, it ~nvolves an adjou~nt proposal aff~eting the substance~" · ·

...... :..

The Deputies held an indicative vote on the adjournment proposal. 3 votes for, 3 against, 11 abstentions.

Resulta

SECR.:ZT

- 15 .. CN/Del/Concl(77)276 Addendum

· The Representative of Greece made ::he following stateraent:

"I should just like to make one remark: in view of the attitude that has emerged fran the indicative vote, perhaps some delegations which did not have an opportunity to express themselves before would like to do so in the ligat of the deliberations which have taken place this morning. Precipitation in this case might give rise to a procedural defect. To my mind, this insistence is scandalous, to say i.:he least."

'!he Deputies held a final vote on the adjournment proposal. Result: 3 votes for, 6 against, 7 abstentions.

The Representative of Switzerland said he had voted against the one-month adjourm.1ent but would h·ave Geen in favour of a shorter adjournment.

The Representative of Norwaa said she had abstained because, in her opinion, the Cypriot delegation coul have got in touch with its Minister· for Foreign Affairs before the November meeting.

The Representative of Cyfrus made the following statement:;

"In response to what the Swiss and the Norwegian Representatives say in explanation of their votes, I would only say that this delegation would welcoc.1e l;lufficient time to consider it if there is going to be a meeting• If· you want to convene an extraordinary meeting in 10 days, this· d~legation is willing to participate, or if you want to convene it next week. But this delegation is not in a position to take a stand in the short period of time which has been given to us".

The meeting was a9journed until the afternoon.

*

* * The Representative of c:xprus raade the following statement:

"l1r Chairman as I said this morning I am not in a position today to take a final stand on the text, for the reasons I have explained. My proposal for adjourmaent to November "VJaS not carried and I "V70uld therefore like to make another proposal. I should like to leave the question to next vJednesday, to give us enough time for r.'.y Ninister to be informed, for him to consult the government and to deliberate on the-situation.

If we are to grant some tiine for consideration, it is just becaus·e .we really want to help one or more delegations to carry out their task. If we adjourn till tomorrow it would merely be giving the impression of granting that delegation the necessary time. It is practically impossible for DY Hinister to convene and consult the Council of 11inisters by tomorrow evening. Either you proceed right away without adjourning it for toc.1orrow, because there is no point in just giving the impression that an adjournment has been granted,! or give us three or four days for consultation. After all I suppose this is also a human right."

.

SECnET

O;:./Del/cof..c1{17)27·6·· .. : - 16 -Addend~

The Deputies voted as follows on the proposal for an adjournment until ~7eclnesday 26 Octobe~: ·

3 for, 2 against and ll·abstentions.

'!he Representative of·Belgium recognised· that to ta~e a hurried deci~ion ·on· the draft would be unvrl.se~ He ti:.1erefore proposed that the decision: be .. postponed until Friday· afternoon. ;

The Representative c)f Gz.erus asked the Chairman to give permission 1· ' .. to 11r Loucaides to t:lake a s;:atement.

1~1r. Loucaides raade the folloWing statement:

"It seems that the ~..,uestion of the decision is stiJ,.l before you for con:sidera'tion. Until the final decision is tSken you r.1ay all ·have·. · the opportunity to ehink about' some possible _-s-uggestions. I will · ·· confine myself to what ue consider as necessary, n1inor, but necessary, amendments to this decision so as to be clearly in l_ine with Article 32, the applicJltion t>f which, I understand everybody··a-grees is the responsibility of this C~ttee. Article 32 presupposes a decision relating to specific violations of the Convention. ruat point I already

. . . . I

.·.

made this r:1orning. For ·clarity you r.1ay fin~ it advisable to r!lake a reference to these violations s~ that the Article is applied properly and that the oppor·cunity is given to the. guilty party, that' is Turkey, to be able to redress .and remedy these violations, because we -.:dll all understand the embM-rassment of' the guilty party when at the end

· of the day it ~Till coo1e and say, what did you expect n!e to do'l · Hha t r..easures did you ~1arit r.-:.e to· take when yoo clidn',t tell ine what vilations · · · I had camnitted'l These may be remedied, I think, by making reference in the third paragraph to the violations which were the subject matter of the report of the Commission. For example, I read frarn paragraph : .. 3, 11 'lhe Committee finds that certain events" (I put here, to underline the lvord "certain" to indicate that that '1:-Tord by itself makes it necessary to specify which are the events which are considered violations). So, 11certain events referred to in tl1e report of the Conu:lission". That is point one so far as the violations are concerned, unless of course you want to go as far as saying e::pressly tl.te specific articles or acts constituting· the violations. This I underStand is rather difficult because it \-Till be at the expense of the concise form that such a decision should ha~e. The second point is, as I understand Article 32,. t~t· there can be no question of a finding by a committee, by your Committee, that there have been violations without ntentioning the guilty p~rty. Of course, by implication it is Turkey, but ~nless · we have it the;re, how can we then ·say when t-Je come to parag~aph 3, which says the follol-Ting: "if the High Contracting Party concerned", how can we not without great difficulty clearly indicate the party concerned, and say that it has not taken satisfactory r~:easures'l I:.: is I understand the consistent practice of this Committee, always, without any exception, to tnention the nieh Contracting· .Party tha -::· has cammitt~d the violations. there is not a singl~ eXample to the contrary. Perhaps.the precedent of the Gteek case which is r~ported in Resolution DH(70)7 will give' you sdne assistance. ·So what .is the problem? The problem i~ to name the guilty party_,_· because Artic_le 32 reqUires that. I wo~ld say quite expressly, quite clearly.

:!-·:

SECH.ET

- 17 -

t6.5.5

CE/Del/Conct(77) 276 .Addendur,:

In this rela·::ion I "t>7ould like 'i:;J clra"t>r your attention to 1-rhat you ·already of course l:now., That is Rule : of the rules adopted by you. Rule 5 provides aD ~allows:

11 the provision::; of paragraph 2 of Article 32 enable the C:)r,J.Jittee of Einisters in cases '!!There it :1as decided that there has been a violation, to gi•Je advice or rc.ake suggestions, or recor:1:n.cnda tions to ::::1e State concerned11 •

That is another strong argtr::ent, l·rit!1 all due respect, in favour of the neces::ity, for clarity and effective application of Article 32, to name the I-iigh Contracting Party '!trhich 'tJas guilty of the violations of hur.:an rigl:1ts. This is the par·ty concerned., The ne~~t point is in respect c:e paragraphs l~ and ::·. Th.ere is reference to the intercor:ntunal talks. Not only is there no objection, but we all agree that there should be r.'.eaningful i ntercor.J.illunal talks. But the question is, ho'ttJ is this rele•;ant to your task under Article 32? You are :1.ere to deal only within the limits, because you have lir.-.its, 't·re have limits, within the lirdts of Article 32, which speaks about violations. And the violations co:r,plained of refer to a r:;overn;1ent, to Turkey.. \'Je did not c01·,;,plain ~gainst the Turkish corwrounity, and l-:.ave never complained against ti.1at. You have no such proceedines.. vJell, if you find violations by Turkey, "Vrhat could the t~vo con:n:;:lUr:.ities· in Cyprus· do :::o redress the situation'? None of theL cor.;;ruitted any violations and there is no such coL:plaint before you.

Linking t.he question of viola !:ions to the intercon1lnu.J.al tallcs transfers the '{;lhole question to a uattcr bet·Heen the tt-JO communities, something that has never been the case. 3o, this wish, this recor.::mendation l-rith whic:1 -v;re agree, can perfectly -v1ell be part of a decision concerning the political aspect of ':he case l·rhen .. this Cor:rrdttee deals ui th the political probler::. of e:~ercising functions other tl-Uin the implementation of Article 32. Because in this \vay, as drafter, the question comes to askins the victil::1.s of. the violations to remedy the violations.

The othe.r point is that the decision itself and there can I think be no disar:;reer~ent about it, is a decision :that there have been violations of human rigi.1ts. The.t is clearly the case. It is expressly stated therein. Hhat happens then. ·t'Jith paragraph 2 of Article 32. I am · reading Hin the affirmative case11 (is t.his not the affirmative case? I agree it: is) • "In the.·affirr.:.ative cese the Cor.mrl.ttee of l1inisters shall" (ir::.pera ti,.re) "shall prescribe a period during 't'Jhich the H.igh Contracting Perty concerned r.~ust tal~e the r::easures required by a decision of the Corm::rl.ttee of Einistcrs11 • So there is no 'ttray of avoiding that obligation of prescribing e particular period during vhich the High· Contracting Party, which has to be named, r.'.ust take the necessary r,,eas.ures. T!::.ere is sor:,ething about a period in ~he las':'. paragraph of the decision, but I think that is, at first siE;l'1t, different frorr what is envisaged by .paragraph 2 of Article 32.

Clt,JDel/Concl(77) 2'76 Addendt.t:n

SECRET

So, the Committee must prescribe a period within which the High Contracting Party must .. take the measures required by the decision. Which measures? It seems that the C~ttee has already, because of this decision which is proposed, considered the necessity of the measures and tl1erefore the necessity, the interwoven necessity, of specifying the measures must also find an expression in the decision. Just a vague te~ such as 'rJ.easurest is not in line either with the spirit or with the letter of the Convention. If I were the representative of the guilty party, I would cane and say I did nothing, because you did not tell me what violations I committed, you did not suggest a time within '\<rhich I should do something and you did not tell me what to do. Therefore, the whole decision becomes-futile. I will not take more of the tu~e of the Committee. rnere are some questions of wording, not so irJ.portant, but perhaps you may have them in mind, suc!1 as at the end of t·he last paragraph. The French text: uses language which ir.:~plies conformity of the decision with Article 32 but when it comes to the English language, one finds a comma that r:;ay lead to misunderstanding.. It says here "if in 9 months the. situation so requires the Coonittee reserves the right to place this matter again on its Agenda, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32". As if this is not in accordance with Article 32. I do rely on the judgerJ.ent of the Deputies. I have no doubt that they will communicate with their governments. if they themselves find ~he suggestions just put forward as reasonable, they rJ.ay consider it necessary to get the advice of their governments, because we take it for granted that your governments \';rant this·Convention, this Article 32 not to fall to pieces, but to be applied strictly. Though everybody r~ay have instructions (there is nothing wrong about that, that is the procedure) please ca.1municate with your governments to safeguard the ·tetter and spirit of Article 32."

The Representative of Greece made the following statement:

'o/zy delegation'wishes to support the interpretation of Article 32 of the. Convention given by the Representative of Cyprus. It is beyond doubt that this Article is not being applied in the draft resolution submitted to us. Obvious].y considerations may intervene that do not dictate application of the Convention on Hu-A~.:l Il:l~hts.Such connic!crotions cay influence attitudes and. tlu:tt io unfortunntcly- ~:h-:; cnse herc.I ou!jcrvc.:that a ~ood ·r..nny cclog!t~ona ~t.\..,l)vrt tLc procedure i:::)o:Jc~ c.n U,:} t!lin t.cr~-..in:::., nnd I hove t:i..:;· cl~cr inpression that tneir reasons for this have little to do with the aims of the Convention. I should like to remind you of the motives that pra~pted signature of our Convention. In order to prevent a repetition of the a trocitie committed durins th~ war our countries consulted together and took .steps intended to secure. the future and hu-JB~ freeda~ and dignity. I need not tell you that while we are taking this decision t.hose same freeda,1s are in danger;· not only in Cyprus but in the heart of Europe as well. The only political reason that should influence us is that stated in Article 3 of our Statute, which makes the rule of law a condition of any decision.

CH/Del/Concl(77)276 Addendm:

As I have had occasion to point out, when a political organ has to take a decision on the basis of firmly established provisions of law, those provisions set 't limit to its political action. That is why I r:tentioned the Hague Court's Advisory Opinion of 28 Nay 1948 on the conditions of adoission of a state to r;:em.bership of the United Nations, in which it is said that "the political character of an organ cannot relccse it fror:1 the observance of ••• treaty provisions ••• when they constitute limitations on its powers or criteria for its judsment11 • That is how this Committee has always acted and taken its decisions. vlhen my country succumbed to dictatorship and was put on trial a complaint was nade to the Commission '· of Human Rights. At that time, to this institutionls honour, a unanimous decision 't-Ias taken in favour of the Corrnissionts conclusions, despite certain comments on whe~~er or not the Commission had been able at the time to carry out fully its missio~ in Greece. That did not prevent the Comuittee of Hinisters from taking the decision it took, which befitted the subject at issue. 'lhe issue at the tir.;.c "ms of course the denial of fundamental freedOm.s in Greece, but the raain point was the existence of an authoritarian regime that was camudtting the violations~ Today a democrati~gime, . at least one whose constitution and existing laws are democrt!'Eic, is infringingnot only the laws and constitution but also the Convention on Human Rights.

The applications that have been filed have given rise to a conclusive report that has been presented to this Comraittee. And tv-hat is this Committee doing? Simply putting off for nearly a year ariy decision on concrete and unequivocal findings. After a year of beating about the bush we are today confronted with a draft resolution that has nothing to do either with the conclusions of the report before us qr with the attitude which this Committee should take on the case in point. Can we swerve frarr. our obligations accordingto whether we consider circuustances to be favouiable :or unfavourable? Is it logical ~:o say that conventions must be applied in case of a country that is under a dictatorial'regir.J.e but not when its regir.le is denocratic? Article 32 is clear, and so is its application •.. The Representative of Cyprus has e:~,:plained ;its mean~ng t'o us, and I think the legal departments in all your countries will agree with his interpretation., ~n<y then should we choose. a different course in this case? I said this morning, and I repeat, that the iraperative of the mornent is to prevent the violations from continuing. We have had no indica don from the respondent Government that it is prepared to restore the, situation. Despite this attitude we are now obliged by a hasty procedure to consider the case without 'even allm-.'i.ng any time to the Government of Cyprus.,

I should also like to say that I support the proposals raade by the Governruent of Cyprus for certain amendments to this draft decision, though as far as my government is concerned amendtnents are beside the point, for I consider this text to be in absolute contra~i'ction with Article 32. 'lhat being so there is no purpose at all in naking inprovements in it, for it is fundamentally at odds :with the aim we are pursuingn.

Cl':/Del/Conct(17)2.76 · Addendua

SEC:lillT

:: ')

The Representative of Turkey protested against the Greek Representativeis stater:1ents casting doubt. on Turkey's democratic regioe and asked hir.1 t6 explain himself. r

The Representative of Greece made 'the following statement:

"In answer to my Turkish colleag~, \'lho is anxious to kno"t<rwhat I think of the detp.ocratic regime iri Turkey, I W01,1ld. say that democracy is a sy.stem that is built up· day by day, not by constitutions and la\';rs but by the attitude of citizens and governments·, whose combined effect in public 'life oak~s up the .:soul and spirit ·of what ~-re call democracy. When such a regime finds itself in circilrast~nces of' the kind "t<lith which we are confronted today, wi,th Violatic;ms of ht~nan rights and ft.mdament~l freedQr.1S con,firm.ed by the fin,dings of organs set up by this institution's member coUntries, then people begin to ask questions.. I believe that if we accept that a· country can violate ha..".an rights with ir.:lpunity, and if our attitudes imply that it may <to so "tolith iL1punity, then we becane accessories to the destruction. of democratic regiraes and of der..1ocracy in general"•

The Representative of ~rkez made the following stateraent:

"I listened wi.th deep consternation to the statei:.ients by the Greek Ambassador on the a·uthentic nature of· the der.1ocratic regime, in Turkey. Unfortunately, I had. the impression that the Greek Representative, c~rrietl a't·1ay by his. uncontrolled eloquence, was no longer master of his ideas · and has gone far beyond the.liridts of diplir.~atic courtesy. I have had the honour of holding long conve~sations in this House on highly topical '·

'political subj~ctfi affectin,g the national interests of Turkey and Greece with eminent' Greek politiciann such as 1-:lessrs. Averoff and Bitsios. I never heard these Hinisters use such rJ.alevolent and agressive expressions during .our frank' conversations as those used by ; . Mr .. Kambalouris,. Not only was th~ir style gifferent, bu¥ also the substance of their thought on the problems currently. besetting us. It .~-ras more realistic, objectiv~ anc:I diplomatic., 'lherefore, I find it impossible · to imagin~. that 14r. Kar;lbal.ouris shou19 have made these accusations on his Governm.entts'instructions. A diplomat's first duty is to try to iron out difficulties and ,not· to mak~ 1;:he gap betl-1een the par. ties concerned .. even wider. Accordingly, I protest r:1.ost euphatically against his statement.,"

The Representative of Cygrus made i:he following s'tatement:

. . , . . . I

"We int'end to put in ~-rriting the amendments on the lines of what I told you. Hay I add scoe'thing that .is .of ioportance I think, so that in. the r.1eantime you can r~flect o~ it and deliberate., It is obVious frorJ. the report of the Coqid.s~ion, it;: is an i.ndisputable fact;., that Turkey d.id not. co-operate with the C'orJmission, 1.1nder Ar.ticle 28 of the Commission. 'lhey .· ... · did not participate in the proceedings after their objections regarding · the admissability were rejected. Is it not perhaps pertinent to nake a finding about that, to say something about that? That you deplore it, that you condenm it - perhaps that you at least consider it a very bad precedent, contrary to the Convention. The distinguished Representative of Turkey oade a reference to the ~ethods used by the ConL1ission. I would like to remind you that it is really unfair and unjust to accuse an organisation like the Council of Europe of using unacceptable oethods and of being one­sided. You all know that the Commission is corlposed of jurists of the highest integrity and it is very unfair to make such accusations and we would like these views to be recorded."

SECRET

.. 2.1 ~ CJ:.t/Del/Concl (77) 276 Atklendurn

The debate on this itco was adjourned until Friday 21 October.

'*'

.. * * The Chair,[nan poil\ted' out that a draft de~ision had been subr::dt·ted, to l-mich an amendi:lent had been tal:i1ed that morning. He called. ~p the_ delegation of Cyprus to expla.in its . araendroent. . .

The Representative of C~rus made the following statement:

"Ur Chairman, in line with what I e~plained yesterday concerning some points that we:noticed in the proposed decision, I have prepared a doc\lnent contairiin·g the amendments_. ·The text is as follows:

"'!he Committee of llinisters· i'las exatilined Applica tio~s Nos 6780{74 _ and 6950/75 filed by the Republic of Cyprus v. Turkey after the events of 1974. . ..

It has likewise taken into conddera.tiori the COt:llllissiont s Report as l<rell as the memorial o.f .the Republic of Turkey and the observations thereon of the Cyprus Governcicmt ~ · · ·

The Committee notes ~th concern the. fact that 1urke; did not co--operate l-1ith the European Commission of HurJan Rights as· envisaged by Article 2C of .t~e European Co~vention for the pr.otection of human rights •

. ·. . ' .. , . . .

~1e Committee finds that certain events which occurred in Cyprus and led the CommiSsion to i'ts conclusions constiiute violations of the · Convention. Consequently it asks that all necessary measures be taken by Turkey within a period of nine months in order to provide for remedy and put -an end to such viola-tions of hwan rights'E7.s,might continue to occur.

If in nine months time the situation so requires, the Committee-reserves the right to place this matter again on its agenda in accordance with the provisions· of Article 32(3) of. the Convention."

In the first paragraph to allow the proper determination of the proceedings, l-1e added the word Turl~ey. This is and has been the title of the proceedings all along. To the second paragraph at the end of the sentence, we have added the followinn: "and the observations thereon of the Cyprus government", meaning the observations that the Cyprus govermnent submitted in respect of the Memorial of the Republic of Turkey. This is to have a full picture of all the docwents ":rhich have been taken into consideration by the Committee. A ne"t-:r paragraph, third paragraph, which refers to the non-cooperation of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights .. an indisputable fact which I touched on yesterday. I? the following parazraph we have added in the second line "and

Q~/Del/Concl(77)276 Addend urn

SECRET

led the Commission to its conclusions" to give a tainimum identification of the events referred to in the decision. Then in the fourth line towards the end we added "provide for remedy" after the words "in order to", so as to cover violations l'Thich have already been committed and are not now continuing. And at the end of the sentence we have excluded the words "and so that such events are not repeated" purely for presentational purposes. It doesnt t really matter whether this. sentence is included or not. Since I a~1 on this point, I would like to also say that if the Committee has strong feelings against paragraph 3, we do not insist on a reference to Article 28.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the de~ision proposed by Belgium were also omitted, for the reasons I eJcplained yesterday. They can of course becooe the subject of a seperatc decision or when dealing with the political aspect of the case,. The final point is that when referring to Article 32 in the last sent.ence of the decision we have added paragraph 3 for obvious reasons.~~

The Representative of ~rkey presented the follol'Ting amendments to the draft decision subrnitted. by the Belgian delegation.

"1• Add *since 1963t at the end of the second paragraph;

2. pelete the second sentence of the third paragraph beginning tcoriscqucntly, it asks ••• i;

3. Delete the last paragraph beginning tif in nine monthst time • •• ln.

The Representative of Turkey explained the merits of his amendments as follows:

"The problem of Hur;~an Rights in Cyprl:ls is a coopw:ehensive one affecting both communities on the island. The draft decision refers to o1o documents in its second paragraph: the rep9rt of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Turkish Government's Mecorial. As the member governments of the Council of Europe will have noted, the latter deals ir. Appendix 2 mth cases of violations of the Human Rights of Turkish Cypriots after 1963. He thought it desirable to add that detail to the te:ct of the draft by adding the words "since 1963" at the end of paragraph 2.

Paragraph 3 of the draft requests that ''measures be taken"• In fact, such measures can only be possible as the consequences and results of inter­communal talks. The pre·sent 'tV'Ording may give rise to an erroneous interpretation of the intentions of the draft, and that prmupts us to propose that this paragraph of the text concerned be deleted.

GI:CI'J:!:T

'i··. - {..~ - ClfJ/Del/ Concl (77) 276 Addenduru.

We also propose that the last paragraph of the draft decision be deleted because sue:• a provision misht enable the Greek Cypriots to approach the Cor.mittee of Mini.sters ";rhenever even transitory difficulties arise in the course of the inter-communal negotiations, by asking the Cor..unittee to intex:v.ene in the norraal course of negotiations which, admittedly, will not be easy. That poosibility, which represents a considerable.danger for the CorJI:ti.ttee of Hinistcrs, rnisht plac;e it despite itself in the position of an interested party in the· inter-communal talks."

The Representative of Belfium thanked those delegations which had presented amendoents for studying E s ~elegationts draft decision seriouol~ ratl1er than rejecting it out of hand. Aftercareful examination of these amendments his authorities cace to the.conclusion that the proposed changes would call in question the essence of the draft decision, which constituted a ·coherent and .balanced whole. He therefore asked. the Conmittee of l-1inisters to reject thes~ amendments.

The Representative of Greece made the following statement: .

"l h.ave tried to concentrate on the oost fundamental and helpful aspects of the amendments suggested. The delecation of Cyprus has without any doubt been at considerable pains to bring us ;closer ·to the letter· and spirit of Article 3-2. Ho one '\'Till deny that; perspicacity and good faith are all one·needs in order to see it. The Turkish delegation, for its part, has .announced its willingness to co;. operate in finding a solution, and this it can ·only do by der:wnstrating its willingness to nake amends and redress the situation·. 'nlere is no need for me to comment paragraph by paragraph on the amendments .. of either the Cypriot or the Turkish delegation. I believe they are .sufficiently clear and speak for themselves. My delegation is not in a position - and I am speaking on instructions from oy government - to make any suggestion on the text before us or to propose any other ar.~endment to i~, for the very simple reason that it considers this text a flagrant manifestation of disregard of Article 32. I shall therefore simply make a few comments paragraph by paragraph on the text.

Firstly, it says that the· Comraittee of Hinisters has examined appl-ications ntrn~rs such a.nd suc,h filed by the Republic of ·cyprus after the events of 197l}. Does this s.tatement correspond .to the realitieS of our proceedings?

.'Certai,nly not. For the Committee of Ninisters i:s not examining the ·applications, they have alre.ady been exami.ned in sreat detail.' · The Comoission of Hur.:tan Rights has drawn up a report after conducting an investigation under Article 28 of the Convention, and it has expressed a valid opinion as provided in recent decisions of the Court of Hurnan Rizhts which state unequivocally that the Commission has the right to decide its own procedure. The Co!nmittee of Hinisters, '\'7he~1.er at the level of the Hinisters themselves or their Deputies, cannot consider anything but t,he re:port submitted to it by the Commission under Articles ·31 and 32 of the Convention. That is the proper procedure; consequently this paragraph ignores the procedurels very foundations. I regret that here I even slightly disagree with the delegation of Cyprus, which has used the same wor9ins in its amendment. The C<;mmittee of l'linisters has .likewise taken into consideration, says the text, 'the Commission's report;· as vrell as the 1-Iem?rial of the Republic of Turkey on the question of Human Rights in Cyprus'• That too is p~radoxical.. The Comr.dttee should certainly have exanuned the C~amission's report, for it

CE/Del/Conc1(77) 276 Addendtml

SECRET

is on that report, and that alone, that it nust take a decision, ~nthout embarking on any other procedure or any particular procedure provided for in our own specific Rules, which we ourselves have passed. n1us formally the Committee of l'linisters has no right to consider any document other than that of the c~!ussion of Human Ri~~ts, and if bf chance it experiences any difficulty in taking a decision on the Commission's findings and conclusions, a procedure offering different alternatives is provided for; we have a choice of several options. . : That is the formal position by which this Committee is bound with regard to application of Articles 31 and 32 of the Cc;mvention. To introduce and present on equal ·terms the TUJikish GovernDcnt is Ueraorial, which has been submitted here for the first tine, flaws the procedure.Thc Turkish GoV-crmncnt had tllQ option ct nny tine, nnr..! ntill hns, of subLittinc its Ucuorial· throug..'l-t the Commission of Huc~n Ri&~ts, associatinz it with an application. That is the only legal way; there are no others. Of course the Government of Turkey argues that, since it does not recognise· 'the Government of Cyprus, it cannot act in that manner, but irrespective of such recognition it can still, having embarked on .the hur:.1an rishts procedure, file an application and make a legal reservation, which would be absolutely valid, with regard to recognition of the Cypriot Government; and the proceedings could then go on. But that was not done. Instead the Turkish Governcent presents ~tself at this second stage with a bulky docuoent of 600..700 pases ~aying, 1Gcntleraen, here are my complaints asainst the Government of Cyprus•.

That, beyond any doubt, is flagrantly at variance, as the Representative of Cyprus has quite riehtly pointed out on several occasions, with the position adopted at the outset when the application was filed: at that time the Turkish Government said it did not recognise the Goverl'lr.lCnt of Cyprus but was ready to discuss and .take cognisance of the application and submit canplaints at a later stage in a form that would rule out cross­exar.rl.nation on the complaints. In this way a doct.ment has been introduced here by stealth l-lhich is disturbing our minds and creating confusion with regard to what is the right procedure and what is justice. Since governments are not, I think, so well qualified to judge the letter and spirit of the · Convention in the presence of all these facts, the case is being given a political slant, the document in question having been presented in political terms. Thus paragraph 2. is also, in t:ty view, contrary to Article 32 and I challenge all the lawyers to contradict r;:e •.

Let us now come to paragraph 3, 'tvhich states that "the Committee finds that ·certain events which occurred in Cyprus cons.titute violations of the European Convention for the Protection of Htir:.an Rights". In fact this says nothing at all, since Article 32(2) requires that in such a case hthe

. C~Jdttee of Ministers shall prescribe a period during which the High Contracting Party concerned" - the respondent party - '.'oust take the measures required by the decis_ion of the CocrJdttec of Ministers". This provision should therefore be Qentioned, and to ignore it is a serious shortc~ing which places a grave responsibility on an organ. such .as ours. Thus the first sentence of !:he paragraph is again flagrantly at variance with Article 32.

82CRET

; :· CM/Del/Concl(77)276 Adden;:C,_.z;_,

The text goes ~n to ask "that neasures be taken in order to put an end to _such violation,s as .rdght continue to occur _and so that such ·events are not repeated"• Tlli~ .too is inadequate, for violations have been cor.unitted and others are continuing;_ there nrc thus t"t-7o cntezories of viol.atiori, the first of which, which "t-7ere very serious, arc passed over while the second, althouo1 cond~nned, have not yet been specified. How and on what basis c~r.. t!1C rc.opomlcnt covcrr::. __ 2:-_-:.:., o·,rcr: if it d nl:cs to displr:y i tb :::;-:;-ccluill, ca_:p-ly l-lith thi.s? What s:1ould have been ~aid, in _accordance witn tne letter and· spirit of A,rticle 32, is ;th~t the. respondent goverrnnent, once violnti'ons have been founo to occur, _should r.mke ~aends or redress the situatio-n. He are discus sins legal texts.- I kno·w 'tl_ith what close attention .to detall this Coimttee consiJcrs ·deci·sions of uinor ioportance, and so I cannot­understa:ild ·how in a text. of such gravity we can. ignore probleuis that aff-ect the very founqations of our institutions. Hy conclusion is therefore that the whole of paragraph 3 is at cor:.plet:e va~iance with-Article .32 and .another· violation of it.

Coming to paragraph b,., it is said that "the Cornittee of Uinisters c.onsiders that the enduring protection of H~~an Rights in Cyprus calls for the re­establishoent of peace and confidence between the. two cor.:ununities on- the isla-nd". There is no doubt that we think tliis, 'i,j'iid we have said. so on previous occasions when discussing Cyprus here, but I really do not see 't-That is the purpose 9f this para.grap:1 ·in the draft:. is it suggesting that violation of Article'32 is justified by a politicar·c·orioideration such as the re-e!'l.tablishr;tent of peace c,nd confidence b~tween the two communities? But, llr Chairman, how can such confidence be re-established 't-Tithout reparati.on and a guarantee that the same things will not happen again? In any case tl1ere is only one -way of achieving this aim, l7~lich is first to place responsibility where it belong~. Only then can we honestly achieve :a pcisi~tive and lasting result. According to this paragraph 4 the Cor.1111ittee of Uinisters "strongly urges the parties to resur.10 intercornounal talks ,n.th the minimum of delayr•; but 'There ,the Conventior.. on Hunan Rights is concerned what is the purpose of resur~ing intercor.~Unal talks? You see how surprised we all are; I do not think there is any opposition to their r.esumption, but vthat is the point of this paragraph; seeing that the r.esunption of intercommunal tal.ks is what is being sought under the auspices of the United­Uations and its Secretary General, and this air.1 is being pursued through that institution? If fox: one reasor.. or. another we never reach a solution, that is not where l-Te must look for .the reasons. To introduce these two paragraphs of exclusively political si~ificance; in human ri8hts proceedings seems to me to be seeking to bring ~-n a, political. element contrary to· the Convention on'HuiJ.an, Rights and ther.efore yet another violation of Article 32 of the Convention.

Finally, the last paragraph says that "if in 9 monthsi time the situation so requires, the Cornf.rl.ttee reserves the right to place this matter again on .its agenda, in accordance with the provioions of Article 32 of the Convention". I have searched the te::t and even the "travau.."t preparatoires" to see whether by chance Article 32 uakes any provision for putting the caoe back on the agenda foll~wing a decision, even an interim one. For the tirae•limit stated in this paraeraph for reconsideration of the matter by the Cocmittee is a novelty. It seeos to have sane connection v1ith Article 32(3), which deals "tdth what happens if the Contracting Party concerned

CI::!/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendum

SECRET

-·-

has not taken satisfactory measures within the period laid down by the ComrJittee of Hinisters. The paraeraph thus simulates application of Article 32 of the Convention and is therefore inadmissible and contrary to the Convention on Hunan Rights. It is also a tendentious element for those parties that wish to subscribe to such a proposal.

Hr ChairrJan, having analysed point by point and paragraph by paragraph the text suoc.utted to us by the Belgian delegation, I feel I can conclude without hesitation, on account both of the construction of th~ text and of the surprise it has caused, that we are faced with a procedure that cannot be accepted in any circumstances and is w~thout a shadow of doubt a step towards disintegration of our :i.nstitutionts most important sub-· structure, the European Convention on Huoan Ri&1ts. For these reasons ny delegation is most astonished at being confronted with a document of such implications and havine to take a decision on it without delay. We reject it out of hand and consider that any decision taken on it, with or without amendoents, must fail to ae~t our institutionrs clearest objectives."

The Representative of the Netherlands made a remark on the length of the statement by the Representative of Greece.

The Representative of Greece t.mde t:1e followins statement:

'~1r. Chairr.mn, I ask that this innuendo of torture should be withdrawn at once."

The Ch~~~~f thou~1t that the Representative of Greece must have misconstrued the Netherlands Representative. He had been talkins of Human Rights in general.

The Representative of CX2~~. made the follow~ng statement:

1'Mr Chairr:l8n, I 't-rould like to cornment very shortly on our amendments and on the amendments proposed by the delegation of Turkey. The purpose of our amendments is to bring the text proposed by the delegation of Belgium more in line with Article 32. This is clear I am sure to everybody who has read them. n1e purpose of the Turkish amendoents is to take the text further away from Article 32. They refer to matters which have nothing to do with the report of the Commission of Human Rights. It is common knowledge that this Cor.lnittee deliberates on their report and there is absolutely no substance in the Turkish amendments; for this reason I do not think that this comr.dttee should accept these amendments. Finally, I would like to say that I would very much like a vote to be taken on each amendment that this delegation has proposed, paragraph by paragraph."

The Deputies voted on the five amenclrnents proposed by the.Delegation of Cyprus. The results of the votes were as follows in each case:

2 for, 1 against, 15 abstentions

- 27 ... CM/Del/Concl(77)276 Adcl'endur:t

The Representative of Turke.x; took note of the reception given by the Committee to the amendr,1ents, and in a spirit of realism an~ co-operation, he decided to ~dti1draw them in order to save the Committee's time, although he maintained his attitude towards the text of the draft decision and his conviction concerning the r.1erits of ·:J1e. ar:1endments he had presented ..

The Representative of Cyprus made the follmrl.ng stater.1ent:

11The text which is in front of us contains certain doubts as to \>mether violations as found by the report of the Commission have taken place~ If this is true, there are a nuober of ways to eliminate these doubts; tl1ese are provided in the rules of procedure for the application wlrlch is before this Coorndttee to another organ, to tl1e organ which carried out the investigation for instance, that is the European Commission of H~aan Rights. And there are other proceedings I do not need to mention now. I would suggest that, if there are doubts in the minds of delegations, \·;re should find the proper procedure and refer the material which is before us to the appropriate body for consideration. As there is reference in this draft decision which is before us to the Memorial represented by the Republic of Turkey and which has not been under the scrutiny of the COQmdssion, I think we would be failing in our duty in delivering justice if we were not to let the appropriate organ eJcaraine it .. I am afraid that t.his Hemorial has not really been exmnined ·collectively by any organ,."

The Representative of Greece made the following statement:

''If I have understood correctly, Nr Chairr:mn, it seems to me that in making this proposal the Cypriot delegation is basing itself on Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure v1hich provides that v7hen examining a case, and before taking the decision provided for in Article 32(1) of the Convention, the Committee of l1inisters may, if it sees fit, ask the Cormssion for infonnation on certain specific points in the report submitted to it., v1hat is core · important at present is that the delegation of Cyprus is proposing that, quite apart from the procedure provided for in Article 32, th~ COLmdttee should refer the whole report back to the Coo.mission vnth the Turkish Hemorial. Tl1is, although not quite regular, nevertheless seems tone evidence of e:ttreme co-operativeness on the part of the Cypriot delegation, and so ray delegation feels bound to support i t .. 11

The Representative of }3.e.l&itp1 supportecY' by the Nethe,rland,s Representative, said his delegation was against any reference back to the European Cor~ssion of Human Rights. -

The Deputies voted as follows o~ the proposal by the delegation of Cyprus to referthe Turkish Governnent's lleoorial to the European Comrnssion of Hunan Rights:

2 for, 3 against and 13 abstentions.

CH/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendum

SECRE1'

- ?.':' -

n1e ~eprese~tative 0~ czerus made the following statement:

"It has been alleged by this delegation and explained at leneth why . we find that the text l-7hich is before us is not in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 32. This is a legal opinion which was explained yes terd.ay by our legal ,expert here and it is a serious alleeation which should be considered· seriously by· national legal authorities and by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe.· Before we proceed to the vote on the Belgian text, we llould like to have the opinion of· the appropriate deparement of the Council of Europe whether the: text which is before ~s is in strict coc1pliance .:with Article 32 .o~

The Bel&ian Representative said he was not opposed to the Director of Human Rightsmaking a statement, but he thought that the latter should have· the possibility of abstaining frau any cor.:ment if it was too difficult for the Secretari~t to take part in such a delicate discussion. · In view of the late hour, he hoped that the Conmittee ·"t-TOuld· be able. tq · ' avoid any vacillation.

The· Representative of Greece made the following. stateiaent:

- •· '~ shall not try to conceal my reaction to the Belgian Representative's insistence in seel~ing to oppose clarification of a case of such great h1portance. If he is speaking on behalf of his 'GoV(!rnment, and even more if he is speaking on bepalf of the Nine - I ha~e no idea about that - it ir;:.pli.es co~sidex-able responsibility; I wish to oake this clear on my Government's behalf, and I should like to know lV'hethe:r the Representative of Belgitm! has authority to. a.ct ir. procedural matters as he is doine.· · COI.T'.i.ng now to the. proposal made by the Repre-sentative ·of Cyprus, ~ wish to support it, for the Director of Human Rights is here not in a purely decorative capacity but to help us in all circuostances, especially when we are faced with problems of thi.s kind~- Now there are two possibilities •

. Either the Director can r.:ake a statement imnediately, and I think with his abilities we•are entitled to nope that he can, or else he is not in. a position to do so but needs, sowe time for thought, which ue shotlld allow hir.,."

The p.epresentativ~ of pypr~s oade the following _statement:

"I veJ;y much regret to say that the _reaction of our Belgian colleague is. · extrcclely eloquent. I l1ave got the reply. In fact his reaction has given me the reply that I wanted., . n·J.is is a violation of Article 32. vJhy does he refuse to have an 'opinion on whether this te:ct is in confonnity with. Article 32 or not? His uere refusal to allow it shoWjS that he .considers it as being in violation of Article 32.

CJ.l/Del/ Concl (77) 2.76 · Addendum

SECRET

.. '

~1e Representative of Greece made cl<e following stateoents

"Under our Rules of Procedure, Hr. Chairman, when a delegation asks the opinion of the Director .competent in a matter urider discussion, that is its right and an obligation is thereby placed on the Director. There is no question of ·a vote or of any decision by· the Committee as a vmole."

'llle Representatives of Austria and the ;Federal Repu~lic of G,erpfl,nz were in favour of the possibi!ity teing· given to the Representative of Cyprus to put a question to th~ ·Director of Human Rights.·

The Representative of Ireland asked whether the question to be put to the Director of HurJ.an Rights concerned the acench:.1ents to the draft decision.

The Re·presentative of CyQrus asked the permission of the Chairman to give the floor to 1-:Ir · Loucaides who then 1:1.adc the following statement a;

"l1r Chairoan, the question being purely legal, I will draw the attention c;>f Mr Golsong to Article 32 and frariJe the question in the following t·erri!s, irs the proposed decision in ·conforrdty with ArticJe 32, considering that:

a. lt does not name the guilty party;

b. It does not specity the violations;

c. It does not denominate the proceedings before the Cocmittee properly;

d. Although violations appear to be found by the Committee no period is prescribed for the taking of measures; _,_

e. That no specified measures are provided for to remedy the situation;

f. That immaterial alle3at:ions in the fonn of a r,1emorial filed by Turkey seem to have been taken into consideration by the Committee of Hinisters although it v1as introduced, consicJ.ering its nature and procedure, in a: method -icGmpatible with the machinery of investigation · established under the Convention and in particular under Articles 2l• and 26. In this respect I in-.rite the attention of Hr. Golsong to· paragraphs 1 to 8 inclusive of our observation subr.:'.itted on 14 June 1977 ...

And, in so far. as there is no reference to the non-conforrnity of the Turkish gove.rnmen't ·with the provisions of Article 28, this Committee condones that violation by not showing concern for this fact in the decision.· It is not a political question; it is a legal question because we are dealing with violations of the Convention. Hhen it comes to violations is not the Committee going outside its competence under Article 32, 't-7hich Article provides for obligations of the Committee, to find whether there have been violations of the Convention in general. I would like before I conclude to stress the importance if I may of this legal opinion which may be decisive as to the effectiveness of the machiner'J of investigating oocplaiuts of violations of h\.l'.mn rights and as to the r.::eaningfullness of the Convention."

. ,., rt - ·.,.,/ - C£:1/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendurc.

In response ::o l7hat our Belgian colleague has said, there are some colleagues, and I have grea-:: respec:.. for ;:hat, vrho vrould like ·::o rei..:urn to their capitals. This is not a reason i.:o hurry up and take hurriedly a clecision 't,.hich 'tve may regret. I ar:1 very sorry to have to say it, if some of our colleagues have to leave, it will be too bad and vre very r.::uch regret it. Coming to ~:he. point that ·rie said that it is ::oo much of a burden for ::lle Secretariat of the Council of Europe to take on its shoulders, I 't'rould jus:: like to say that, if it is difficult: now, a::: this r •. :xaent, to give a thorough reply to the c:.uestion vrhich !1as been put, :·hey can have tir..1e to reflect. I do not think, l~r Chairr.1an, it is right 't'rhat we are doing, hurrying up a decision. The delegations car.~e here wit!1 the, intention of deciding today: I do nc:>t think this is the correct procedure vrhich has been followed in this Committee since th_e establishrc<ent of tl1e Council of Europe. ·ue are discussing an important :-:uestion. Ue are not discussing one of ;:he ~0 i terns on our Agenda like we do every month. All the arguments that :1ave been put forv1ard by I'"-Y Belgian colleague, the depar:::ure of colleagues-etc,'" are completely extraneous to the issue."

The Represen:::ative of Beleuo recalled that right .Cror:1 -::he start of the discussioa on the draft decision he had stated that in the opinion of his authorities tl•is draft fell coupletely vnthin the framework of Article 32.

The Representative of Turkey said that the voting procedure 'tvas tmder way, votes havin~ been taken on the ru"i"lendments. It was irregular to put questions in the middle of the procedure and above all to make new proposals whic~ called for separate votes.

The Representative of Cypr~s nade the following statement:

"I regret to say that it is not the practice of this Cor:urd.ttee to decide in advance ~;hen the discussion of a question ia concluded. Discussion ta,kes place; lvhen the discussion is e2c..~austed we c01.:.1e to a conclusion. I regret to say that discussion of this case has·not yet been exhausted. Questions have been put, and many more questions will be put later on; lle cannot cor,1e to a decision before the discussion has been canpleted. V.Te cannot forget that this text 't'7aS put before us yesterday. It has never been discussed in the past, as you remember very well. Every month we have had this case on our agenda. Three delegations have tal:en the floor. No other delegations has ever taken the floor to express an opinion. This is the first tine that we really discuss the case. I regret to say that the discussion of the case has not been exhausted in the sense that we have to take in !:.:· r.:inutes a decision on the text 'which was presented by the Belgian delegation."

•

SECRET CV./Del/Concl(77)276 Addendum

The Representative of Switz.erl_a~d said that the question~..1~ut by the Representative of Cyprus uoul<! oblige an international civil servant to interpret the .Convention.. Interpretation of the Convention, ho\'Tever, was solely the prqvince of the High Contracting Parties.

n.c Representative of CzPrUS made the following statement:

"As I have· said before, the question uas put to the appropriate departraent of the Council of Europe. The Council is an entity; it is not persons. I would not want to embarrass ahy person •. If anyone is t.o be embarrassed, it is the Council as a whole; it is t:1e Secretariat. n1e question is put to the appropriate departraent of· the Council of Europ.e and I h~·.re absolute understanding for what the S\nss Arn.bas:Jador has said. For this reason I have just said 't·That I have just said11 • •

The Representative of Greece made the following statement:

"l1r Chairman, what I wanted to say con:cerns the statement by our S't-rl.ss colleague. Althou~~ it shows concern for the Directorate of Human Rights and for its Director lest he should rashly corimit himself by giving his . views on the question, I consider that he has put the problem very badly. L8t me explain. I 'tvould say to ray S't-7i.Ss colleague that there can be no question of asking :1im to place an interpretation on the Convention, for that task rightly belongs to the Court of Hurnan Rig..."l.ts: .. i.t is simply a nmtter of seeing how far the text presented to us corresponds to the provisions of the Convention, and on that point he is not only qualified but obliged· to give an opinion."

The Representative of Austria said that he had not e:{pected a whole list of questions such as .that presented by the Cyprus delegation. He suggested that tl'\e reply by the Director. of Human Rights should· be limited to the compatibility of the draft decision l'Tith Article 32 of the Conv·ention.

The Director of Huraan Ri.&!!ts said he ~Jas of course at the disposal of the Committee of ~~inisters to exercise the responsibilities inc1..10bant upon him. In doing so he 't..ras ready to express opinions and give advice,

With regard to the cor:.pability of .the drnft decision with the Convention, he considered that it was a text which could rely only on Article 32 of that instrument; it v10uld seem clear frorn the first two paragraphs, and particularly the first paragraph, of ~he draft decision that such had in fact been the intention of its authors, since it dealt with appl~cations introduced in the framework of t~e Convention, of the Conw~iscion's report, and of the respondent Government t s r:.emorial. Further, the last paragraph contemplated the possible resumption of the discussions, still on the basis of Article 32. Admittedly, the draft did not seem to exhaust all the possibilities offered by that Article. As it did not strictly correspond to one of the conclusions envisaged in Article 32, it could not for that reason have the mandatory character mentioned in Article 32, paragraph 4.

Cl1/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendum

-

SECRET

'rt1.e Representative of 9.zpr~s nadc the following statement:

11It is my understanding that this is riot a decision. A decision will be taken in 9 x;:•onths. Therefore there is an intention to pos'c:pone application of Article 32 until 21 July 1978.

In fact it seer.~s to me that this is not a coo1plete decision and I really think that e ntr.:be:r of in:portant points have been raised, a ntm'.ber of important repli.es have been given. T!1ere are still a. nt1nber of other important ' · -:.ucotion:.:> thct rer-..ci_n·to be ..replied to. I think before · . : .. the tea breal~ a colleague had Jueees·::..:"d· tha:; a paper s~1ould be prepared. I do not think, l:ir Chain1an, that l7e 'can really now act in haste. There are still, and you noted fror.-l the ·reply which l':ras given, that reference l1as made to the two procedural paragraphs of the draft. ·There was no reference to the substantial part. And this is the substance, this is the question 't·Jhich we uant to knmr. Are those parts in corapliance with Article 32 or ..-.at? ~Je have no clear reply there. VThy should 'tile I•urry n0'\'7 once t-7e ar·e in the dark.u

~1e ~el&~an Representative observed t?at, whereas earlier tl1e Cyprus Representati•Te wanted an mnended te:~t adopted, now he did not appear to want any text adopted.. '

The Representative of Czyrus made the follo'Vdng statenmt:

11l:lr Chainaan I ah•ays have great respect for the judgement of our Belgian colleague. llhen I proposed the arJendr.:ents, it 'trTas just to brine it rigl•t in line with Article 32. If ~hat :1ad been carried, !·'Y attitude now would have been differe:1t; it t-Tould have bee;:. redundant. It ~10uld not have been necessary to say anything once the proposals had been accepted, because the text would have been brought in line ~1ith Article 32. I do not understand really the attitude and response of our Belgian colleague."

,., . 11Hr Chainum, I uould just say t~1at Er Golsonei s recarks l~ave done nothing to clarify a confusing situation and I feel sure that he is not in a position to throw any t.:ore light on this case.. I therefore think that we cannot rush in and take a decision on tvhich even the cor"petent directorate has been unable to e:cpress any clear and unambiguous opinion11 •

CL/Del/Ccncl (77) 276 Addm::.dun

'Ihe Renrenentetive of tL1e United Kinedor.: said that his Goverm.:tent had all .., • ~ 1 T 1 T 12

alon3 had serious doubtn and anxieties, in tcn~s of both substance and procedure about the course of action now under discussion in the form of the Belgian proposal. He had reccivec: instructions in the lieht of the debate so far to oake these doubts and aru~ietics plain. Hare particularly the preference of his goverru::::;:nt ~10ulcl be in 1 £avou~· of referring the Turkish l1enorial, together wit:: the cor:ments of ot:1c:r deleeations, to the Comr..rl.ssion for a supple"tlentary opinion. He had abstained ~rl1.en this had been proposed durinc the process o:C votins on auendr.:ertts to the Bcleian proposal.. But he wished no~7 to put clearly on record that, if the· Comr.U.i:tee decided not to adopt the Belr;ian proposal, the United Kingcloo.1 'Delegatio~ -;vould support reference back to the Cor;n:1ission.

The Representative o£ pz.er~~ r.tade the follo-;.7ing statement:

"Nr Chairman, I think ·we should all be a little r;!ore frank. He have discussed a ntri:;ber of aspects; 't7e :1ave put questions; we have received ans~rers and ue all !mow that there are doubts in our r:,ind as to nhether we are· ·,. applying strictly Article 32. I cannot really understand the desire of the Cor:unittee to proceed 't'nth the matter riS:'lt a-;.ray ~rith these doubts in their rainds. I really t::annot .. understand it. Are they not thinkins of the possible repercussionn. TJ:1ines change, tiraes change, roles chanse and ne uay find ourselves really in n very unfortunate situation in the future if we hurry up, take a decision, kno~7ingly, intentionally in violation of :::his Article. I. really think, t:r C!-:airr::.an, that '"e should have sor.1e time to reflect.

The silence of the Coc.taittec is eloquent cnoug:1. I 't'7ould not like to use the ~rord the torture of silence, but i;: is true that the silence is indicative of a serious doubt. Coming to t-.rhat I :1a"1e just hev.rd :eror., our British colleaeue, that sho"VTS I think, beyond doubt, that there are serious considerations that ::.aYe to he e~camined before 't're proceed vlith a decision, and I 't'wuld like to cdr.le t.o anotJ.'-ter point to uhich I have not referred so far llr Chairruan. Tl:i s ·is the 4 v1cel: rule, v1hich -;.1e respect 't'rhen ,..1e talk about nothinc. 'H!1.en ue i:alk about an ir,'.portant question and about a draft decision, the l} neel: rule is forgotten. llobody r;:entions it. T:Je received the te:ct yesterday artd have to vote today. This is, '1:.\r Chairman, acainst the practice of this CorJIJ.ittee. T11e l} 'tl7eel: rule is forgotten."

T:.1e Representative o! France said that his delegationts silence r.:ust not be interpreted as reflecting doubts ac to "t-rhether the ·te:~t proposed by the Belgian delegation 1;1az '\c7ell-founcled.,

The Representative of ,9l.£r.t!.!!. r::.ade the follov7ing staterJ.ent:

"I thousht "t-7e heard fror.1 our Director of Htri:;.an Iligl<ts that Article 32 is the basis of the decision. I think there is a sligh.t difference betwee•• the basis of a decision· and whether it is strictly in coulpliance 1;7i;::.~ Article 32. I think there is a considerable ui:Herence o•rer .that. Uhet~1.er "V7e speal: about the procedural aspect of t:he decision or about the substance that is anotl.er natter .. ·He have not heard a~• opinion on the substm:ce. It in ·:rue it is the basin. I agree uith that ..

Cl:./Dd/ CO':!Cl (77) 27 E .AddcndU'i".l

SECRET

hr Ci:1airman there are t"t-70 oues::ions that have to be cleared up befordu:~nd. Th2 first one is the l} 't'leel~ rule 'tV'hich I r,1cnt::'.oned before. If we need l~ weeks for any ir;:portan·:: docur.1ent of ·::I1is. Secretariat, l:ow r.mch r.1ore do we need to apply tl-:.e l, ueek rule ·pith ir.:po:i:'tant te)CtS of resolutions. I 'trould like to have a vote as to 'tvhether l7C need a four 't'Jeek rule 'li7hen 'liTe vote on ir;~portant resolutions? "•

T:1e Representative of Belc;iur,: said that in his vie't..r the four~"t-Jeek rule ..... ·~ •• , t'! ,

did not apply when t:1c Co:nmittee was sittinc as an orean o:c :::1e Ht.nnan P.ignts Conve~:.tion. The Cypriot Delesation had been aeaiust the application of t:1e four-week rule w:1en it had subr.:itted araendments.

The Representative of Greece 1:1ade t~1e following statement: ............. b •

"llr Ci1airoan, v1hen the Representative of Bcleiur.l speaks of the Hurnan Rights Co:wention the time-limits are different ... t:1ey are r::uch longer: that is a ·::ruth recognised by everyoneo The second rer.mrk he has just tJ.ade is not valid either, because 'liJ~1en t:1e C7priot delegation presented its aoendments, it 'il7as ir. a zpirit of co-operation and in order to find sor.1e Eeeting of r.:inds so ~hat the draft decision could c01uply "t-ri.th the terr.1s of Article 32; since :.:::i~ atterJ.pt han failed, the question 'il-7ill have to be taken up again. That in why neither the first nor the second rer;lark is valid.

Article 32 clearly :::-::ates that decisions to be taken under its provisions si1all be taken only at r::inisterial level~ in all its paragraph::: t:1is is stated in precise and concrete terr.1s. l.Ioreover, t!1e entire case-la¥7 of tl1i s 0 r gani sa ti on s i r.ce its f ounda ti on shows t!1a t a 11 the cases which :1a ve been dealt with and all :~he decisions· tal:e~, 't'lhether interim decisions or final decisions rela tine to violations of hur.:.an rig..'l.ts, have been at uinisterial level; there is no exception and if today we decided ::o -::ake a decision at Deputy level that 't'lould be yet another infringement of Article 32,. That said, t:r Chairr,lan, r.1y delegation proposes, under Article l}(b) (ii), of ti1e Rules of Procedure of the Cor:linittee of 1-linisters, that the question be includecl on the agenda for the neJtt Linisterial meeting, in Nover2ber; this being any delega tiont s right, l7e have certainly not to take any decision on the subject".

The Representative of CZ£rus made t!:.e follo't7ing statement:

11I understand that it in always the practice for a deleeati.on to :1ave the right to ask for a ~uestion to be placed on the agenda of the Cohnnittec of Einisters. This vmc f9rrr..ally done by the Greek .Pemanent Representative on instructions fror;: l:is eovernr.l.ento Ac you l;:nol1, better than I, this Cor:.1r..1ittee is a political body e~{ercining a judicial function. It does not abandon its political nature ns you have all been sayi'ng all the tirue l-1:1en "t-Te apply Article 32,. Therefore, ti1ere is no problem in agreeine that it ic also a uatter o;: political it':.1portaDcev There 5.s no difficulty.

SECRET

' c· .. ..:..,_ .. CL/Del/Concl(77)276 !.ddeaduru

'lhe rules of procedure shc~1 beyond any cloubt that one cieleaation has the ri&lt to place the question on the agenda of the Con:mittee of 1-linisters. Ar~icle 4, parasraplt (b) (ii), of the Rules o:5 ProcedUre of the Committee of Uinisters rcaclo 11 ·::!1i:::: provisional acenda ·vl•ich shall be e;iven preliuinary exar::ination by the Deputies shall include" I underline the "to7ord shall 11 questions includi~1g any draft resolutions put fonvard fo-r consideration by~ember or by the Secre::ary General"• In this case it is clear it is a draft resolution put for"~rd by the Jelgian ~elesate and the Greek delegation has requested that this draft resolution be put before the Comaittee of Ninisters. I do not think there is anything further to discuns."

The Representative of -:::1c Netherlands stressed that the CorJraittee uas not sit::ins in its usual role but as an organ for the exercise of the ::unctions uncle:r Article 32. of· ·::he European Con-vention on Hur:1an Rights.

The Representative of C]P,rus made the f:ollo"t7ing statementz

"The cuestion we are· discussing has notl":ing to do with "1hether the Comralittee is sitting under P.rticle 32. or not. It is the question of "t·7hether a delegat.ion. can request '- question to be put on the l1inistersi agenda. This is quite clear. It is cl.aarly the ·rigl-:.t of a delesai:.ion to put the question before the llinisters. In these circumstances we cannot continue tl:e · discussion; a delesate has requested the -:;_uestion to be discussed by tl-::.e Uinisters themselves ..

The articles of the rules cf procedure are clear. Article 2 paraeraph 3 of our rules of procedure reads: "The Deputies shall, however, not take the decisions on any matter, which in the vie\-7 o£ one or t.sore of them should by reason of its political ioportance be deal·;: \ri.th by the Committee of llinisters meeting at r.dnisterial level." Even if "t'le argue that it is a legal question of political ir.1portance, it gives the right to one delegation or two delegations to esk for the question to be put before the 1-'Iinisters, to be deaLt t·1ith by the Ccnnittee of Hinisters meeting at ministerial level. I repeat, Hr. Chain1..0n, tllat after the proposal of the Greek Permanent Representative, we c.anr.ot continue discus.::ing the question any further."

The Director of Rur.1an Ri. ts er,1phasised that liithin the framework if the e::ercioe o unctions in the present case, the powers of the COJin:uittee of liinisters rested e:~clusively on Article ::;2 of the Human Rights Convention. v1hen exercising suc:1 powers, the Committee of t-1inisters was governed by the rules specially laid down in the application of Article ~2. and n.ot by its Olm Rules of Procedure, which applied· to the functions e:~er9ised by the CoL:u:dttee of I:linisters under the Council of Europe Statute. This concept ha~ been expresned with great clarity in the first scientific study devoted to Article 32 and published by the former Deputy Secretary. General, Br Eodinos, in the ''l.ielanges Rolinn. l.ioreover, when the rules for the application of Article 32 "trere adopted at the 18ls t r..ee ting of the Deputies, the COCI"Jittee of Hinisters agreed to this reasoning.

Gi:)Del/Concl (77) '27 6 .Addendur.1

3ECRET

Hot-rever, it 't-ras obvious that if a procedural problem not covered by the rules of procedure specially laid do~m for the apprcciatio:.-1 of Article 32 were to arise, any delegatior. could propose that reference be made to one of the Rules of Proced~re of ·::he Conr.1ittee of llinisters or of the Deputies t-rhich were normally applicable ::o Gt:atutory activities.. But in a debate concerninc Article 32 any such rule t7ould ha•Je to be specially introduced -vnt!1 the conGent of the Cornmi.t~ee of Uinisters, that consent being either tacit, or, if the views differed, by a vote specially taken on the r::.atter. Ariy de plano application of the Rules of Procedure relatinr. to statutory activi"ties tras hence incompatible with the npecific nature of Article 32.

Consequently, r~o <.lelegation had the right, under Article 32, to rely for , exanple on Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure oZ the Hinisters' Deputies or Article 4 of t~1ose of the Cor.mttee of t:inisters. nothing could prevent, ho"t-Tever, the Comr.rl.ttee, by a vote taken in accordance wuth Rule 10 of the 11ilules adopted for t:1e application of Article 3211 , f.::on1 introducing in a particular case the rr.achinery defined in those two articles.

Replying to the question raised iJy the Greek Representative, he e'{presned the view that the possibility offered by Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Einisters• Deputies, !1aruely to restrict a given discussion to a r.-:.eeting of the Con..-nittce of t:inisterz at Foreign llinister level, could not apply within the framework of Article 32 of ·che Convention. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Deputies' Rules constituted, in regard to ~~tters arising under the Statute, an escape clause for any delegation which considered that c:. case handled by the Deputies was of such political importance that it should be reser7ed for discusGion, and possibly decision, by the Ninisters for Foreign Affairs. How, \lhen exercising functions under Article 32, the Cor.aa:i.ttee of l1inisters, "t-7hile remaininc a political body, vas required to ·::ake a decision ir: accordance "t-rith objective criteria. If it were intended in this context that a single delegation sl1ould have the right to adjourn proceedings pending a meeting of tl:e Forcier• l1inisters, that would be generally tantamount to allo~~ng the respondent Government a means of procedure calculated to prevent any decision by th.e Coti.1mittee for long periods of time. But 't'rhere the protection of Ht!lTI.an Rights was concerned any such possibility of protracting the discusnion tc:ust be :r:egarded as contrary to the ain and object of the protection of H~ua~ Ri~~ts.

There would be ·nothing, on t:1c other hand, to prevent the Corru:ri.ttee of Vinisters by special decision to that effect, frar, reserJins a decision relating to Article 32 for a rLeeting of the Committee at Foreign Hinisterst level. Finally, the Director recalled that all decisions taken to date under Article 32 by the Committee of l~inisters had been take:1 at Deputy leYel, ·except the decision of April.l970 on the first Greek case, 'tvhich had been taken at Foreign Einistersi level. n

SECRET

37 - CYJDel/Cc-;.:cl (77) '276 Addendum

The Representative of Greece uade tl1e following statement:

"I admire :::1e skill witl1 ~Thiel:. l~r Golsonc has ahrays answered our questior:.s l'rithout eve::: givine us a clear·cut e::planation.. In the present case there can be no question of applying Rule llo. 10. A delegadon, by virtue of the Rules a= Proceudrc, nay request t:1at an item and a draft resolution be placed on the agenda at r:,.inisterial level, but there .is no provision for .th~_p in Rule 10 wl1.ich prescriben that certain procedural questions, such as. th~ or~er and tir.1e-lir:'.its by "t<rhich r,:-,emorials ,oF other <focuraents are t,o. ?e.. 'table;1, shall be de::c;tdned by sitnple pijpri't:y vote of. the Representati·,,eS' entitled to sit on the Cot.'1mittee;. ·: · ··. ·

There is absolutely no relationsliip between a proposal such as the one I have ma'dc and the application of Article 32. He arc not nO'!Ji dealing with the application of Article 32,. but 'Vlith a question of a political character;. f·or even in the document subrnitted there is a re::erence to this: it speaks of intercor.mmnal nesotiations, a subject which in fact characterises the dra:l;t, 't·Those political na ::ure cannot therefore be' doubted. I art:. requestinsby virtue of the rules governing our meetings that it be placed on the agende. of the Cor.mrl.ttee of Hlnisters sitting at Foreign l~inisterst level. vJe have been deb~ting this for the whole day, and the confusion gro"t-rs ever worse confound~d. Is not that sufficient reason for· thE.--l:1inisters to deal with the catter, and for us to diseuse it once again at ou::c preparatory r:.eeting so that "t-re can lay it before our l.iinisters? vJ'hat would the Einisters say tomorrow if they vJere faced 'tdt11 a resolution adopted in suc:l circm.stances, "t-1ith nothine rc:ore than the obser-va-:.:ions of delega·tions directly concerned or of those alhre to their responsibilities under the II1L.1an P..ights Comrention? 11

The Representative of the United Kin;;;clor,: stated that· in the pe.s::: the Represer.tati vc of Greece ha'd 'a'f .. jays underlined t:1.e purely lq~al character of Hur:'.an P'..ights ,~uestions. I:-. proposing now that the cace be referred .to ::!1e l~inis·~ers, because of its political ir:.1portance, did the Representative of Greece ha·.re in r.1ind the substance of the case, wl"lich had long been before t-.he Deputies, or its procedural aspects?

T11e Representative of Greece.8ade the following statem~rtt:

''l1y British colleague· tells r-•e t:mt during my speeches I have er.1phasised · that these discussions ought not to have any political character.· I ,have indeeq done just that and have criticised t'I:70 ·paragrapi1s of the draft in that conte:rt - paraeraph _l}, 'tJ:1ich says that the Comraittee of l~inisters considers ~hat any .. 1asting protec.tio1:. of Hur::an Risl1ts in Cyprus calls for the restoration of p~ace and.confidence between the tvm communities in the island, and the paragrap:1 in "1hi<,:h the COnmittee strongly urges the parties to resur.1e the intercor,-m.mnal talks at the earliest posdble date. Just now I pointed out to the Coronrl. t tee that these t't·To paragraphs ";rould appear to i1ave political undertones. But r:.1y view is that the ~uestion of Human Rig!.1ts should be divorced :Zrot:: politics, "1hich 'VJould ~uean that

Cl1/Del/Conc..l(77) 2.76 Addenda:,

S:ZCI.illT

any application of the resolutions adopted by us in the Human Rizhts field would have no political impact. That is the reason why the most important decisions, on accouut of their political character, have always been considered at uinisterial level. Hhy then should this not be the case now, before this new aopect of the. situation? I would say to the m<ited Kingdom Representative that if I have put forward this view at the present stage, it is because .I hoped that in the meantime, with the amendments that have been propo~d, vre should reach a solution without being confronted bv these difficulties. Could not the t:linisters take the appropriate rc-spon!iibiliticd. I~ io ·~.-it!i vy Govcit1t.:cnt .. d outhodsnticn that I h¢vc ·Lade this proposal' cs a lc::t resort, ~.mile previously leavinc open :i.n this Cocoittee nll possibtU.ties of reaching a just and proper solution in t.1.1e spirit and the letter of Article 32; \-Jhen I realised how strongly we were being urged to br.eak away from the provisions of Article 32 and how the. Comndttee and not only one delegation - mine - but several others ~rere assuming saue degree of responsibility, it was my duty to resolve the probleo differently, by requesting the inclusion of this question as a whole in the agenda for the Committee of l~inisters. I say again that this proposal is one of the rights of every delegation and I fail to $ee how it can or wi1y it should be rejected."

The Representative of Switzerland said that when the Comnuttee of Ministers was sitting as an organ ol the European Convention on Human Rights the rules relating to Article 32 applied. In certain cases these rules referred to the Statute of the Council of Europe. An application to raise a case, already before the Conr1ittee of l-1inisters under Article 32, at ministerial level would paralyse the operation of ·::he COimnittee.

Tl1.e Representative of Cyprus t~:ade the following stateru.ent:

"I do not agree at all with what our S~rlss colleague has said., A delegation l1as the right to put a question on ti1e agenda. This has always been the case since the establismnent of the Council of Europe. Some years ago when I was a Per.:oonant Representative in the Council of Europe, it lo7as the constant practice and nobody doubted the right of a delegation to place a question on their 11inisters' agenda. It goes without saying. vle are sitting here at Deputy level, and when one wants a question to be taken by our Ministers, we can do it. Letts read a little carefully, br Chairman, Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the teetings of the l:linisters' Deputies. "'!he Deputies shall, however, not take decisions on any rr..a t ter which in the viel-7 of one or more of them", in his view, it's

. 9 subjective c:.uestion, it is not a c;uestion of whether we all agree or not, "in the view of one delegation" and in this case it is two delegations "should by reason of its political ir;Lportance be dealt with by the Corml1ittee of l1inisters rD.eeting at Hinisterial level" ••

SECRET

........... - GidDel/Concl(77) 276 Addendu,l

vlith regard to the reply which vras given by the Greek Ambassador before on the question of uhether it is poU,tical or not, I have nothing to add. I agree entirely vrith the reply uhi~h the Greek Ar;~bassador l1as given. Tl"e question has taken a political aspect which was given to it by the draft resolution~ It was not given to it by us. On the contrary, we have clone our best all day today, we :1ave become a nuisance at tir,;es, vJe have taken the floor rr~ore i:han t>re should, just to prove to ypu that v7e are going outside the application of Article 32. In other words we are going beyond the powers .that t7e have in application of Article 32.. 'He have politicised the question by this draft decision",

The Representative of France said that in his opinion the argUi.lent submitted by the· Cypriot delegation was not in order because it had been subr~itted. in the r..~iddle of ::he voting procedure.

Several delegations suggusted that a vote should be taken on the proposal su~.itted by the Greek delegationG

The Representatives ·of Greece !:,ade dle following statement:

11'f..1r Chain1Bn I cannot understand this nervousness; we are in the process of settling the pr0bler.1 on a basi:; which is useful for the whole cor.~.ittee and SOC'I.e delegations .wish to· der;:~onstra:.:e at any price th,at they have ·complied vnth orders whereas their governr.:ents have not had tinte to take accptint of the arguments put forward pere in t~1Eo course of the d;i.scussion, at ·least as regards r::.y proposal to have the oues don dealt l>lith at r;.inisterial level-.. Is there a delee;ation l'Jhich has been in a position to inforr,: its governr.1ent? Er Chainnan, I request you 'to keep order" ..

n·1e Chain:Jan said that he had ah1ays kept order and he intended to keep it· without accepting suegestions fr·on: one delegation or the o·ther$

The Representative of Cyprus nade ;:he following statement:

"In reply to the Jistinguished representative of France I just m:mt to ret~nd our colleagues that our proposal for apendment was to onit the 4th and the 5th paragraphs of . the· text proposed by Belgi \.1:,1. tJe '\'Jere omitting the paragraphs uhich were· of a. political nature. This is true. You can have a look at the text. vJe were trying to restrict it to Article 32. You·said before, you referred ::o our sitting under Article 32. It is true. Could you, l:ir c::.ain.:.an, inforr,: us of the rule which prevents the inclusion of a question on the agenda of the Hinisters when we are sitting under Article 32 of the Convention. I \<70Uld very quch like to kno'\'7 l'Jhether there is such a rule. Gentleoen, we have not yet violated our.rules of procedure, we are trying not to ciolate them,. That is why we ar~ discussing the r,:atter, and I hope as ue have always done, to act in accordance with our rules of procedure. Article 2, paragraph 3 is clear; in the view of one delegation this is a question of.:political importance, and this delegation asks for the question to be put before the l~inisters. Tl.'1ere is nothine to be voted on. I heard :::or:;.ebody speaking about a vote., I do not know 'tvha:: vote to take. There is no vote to be taken4 It is in the view of this delegation that this question is of political importance. It is not necessary for other delegations to share our views. 11

Cf.i/Del/Conc1(77) 276 Addcndu:-::

.

SECRET

'·~ -{.;.:....,. -

The Repres~ntative of Greece r.:ade ::.he following statement:

11£~r Chainaan I ~r:rish to state quite catcr;orically that to take a vote to ascertain whether or not a delegation has the right to apply for a question of this sort to be dealt vJith at einisterial level seer,1S to E<e to be a violation of our statutes and rules of procedure. This is an indubitable right '!-Vhich is incapable of being suh:.:.itted to any other fon.1 of regulation since the rules contained in parar;rap:: 10, to which l:~r Golsong referred just now, rela i:e to a lir;ited section of our actbrities vrhereas ::he provisions eoverning the Cor:.r,littee of Einisters and the Deputies rele. te to the whole of our activities. By the v1hole cf our acti•Jities I eean c:.uestions of political inportance and, in the words of paragraph 4 of the rules of procedure of the Cor.rraittee of l11inisters, questions, .. il'lcluding any draft resolutions, put forward for consideration by a r;,enber or by the Secretary General; this vmrding is clear and I cannot conceive that this particular case, where a te:~t advocates political options on a hur;can rights_ problem, can only be dealt vrith at Einisterial level on the applicatim'i of a delegation after a vote has been taken.. This vJOuld be a flagrant viola·tion of the teltts before us: \7e have violated Article 32 and no~r we are about to violate the wording of our rules of procedure. If i:his is the procedure required ·;:o enable us to reach a decision this e·J'cming, Lr Chairman, I am. sorry but r;:y delegation is unable ::o accept this standpoint.

Article 2(3) of ;:he rules of procedure is a general provision and the rule in Article 10 is of ri:ore special application; if doubts arise concerning the vote to be taker on the procedure for the application Article 32 I vrould recall that "'e are no longer dealing with this subject because at the tLooent we are discussing the probla-.: and it is being raised to ministerial level on the application of a delegation. This application and this right belongs to every delegation and cannot be limited by the provisions of a rule adopted by the CoL~uttee of Deputies when applying Article 32. Such a ri&1t cannot be subject to any kind of limitation as it constitutes a superior and independent rule frar., the procedural and legal point of view. It '\>Tould be bad policy to atter.:pt to change th~ r.1eaning of the specific provisions which have been rLade for Article 32 and the provisions <t<ihich exist and belong to every delegation [and entitle it] t:o raise a question - I am not referring specifically to Article 32 - at ministerial level .. This is the true proble2 and it is inpossible to limit or infringe this right.. That is ,.;hy I think quite frankly and honestly if this were the case it would amount to depriving a delezation of rights conferred on it under the rules of procedure of the Deputies and the Cm~ittee of Ministers. On this pretext one could at any tir.J.e by raising and disser.<inating doubts · prevent a delesation fror:~ exercising or relying on its rights. Hhat then vJould be the scope of Article 4(2.) of the rules of procedure of :':he Cor.ililittee of Ninisters? It ·would be emptied of its substance and at the r;:ercy of any delegation vrhich could raise a doubt., That is why, 1-:\r Chairman, I consider that there is only one decision to be taken, that of accepting tl1e proposal I have just r::ade in the ne;;D.e of r;;y goverm;!ent to include this Lai:ter on the agen~a of the next tr:eeting at r;,inisterial level.

I.' G1~/Del/Concl (77) 276 Addendu:.1

Even if the Cor.1rD.i.ttee really has doubts on this r.:.atter and does not .. n.sh to take a decision at this juncture it is not entitled to re:Cuse E·e this right; it r:;erely has the ric-.1-tt to suspend the session and re~uest the Legal Directora::e of the Ore;anisation to prepare a paper ancl subr:~it it \:rith ·all the Organisation's authority to a later sitting, but you cannot decide no,.1 to deprive a delegation o;: a right based on the statutory rules; thank you Er Chain,J.an.

I \-rould like to know, L\r Chairman, if in fact in this c;:;tsc L:y delegation, any delegation, has not the right by virtue of the statutory te,cts to have this t:Latter dealt 'trit!1 at E-:.inisterial level in November; until I receive a responsible reply I shall consider that any other procedure is invalid.

I am asking in the present case whether or not DY governraent can rely on t:1e provisions of Article l}(2) of t~1.e rules of procedure of the cor,sittee of Einisters. If d1.e answer is in the negative, Nr Golsong has told us that the provisions of Rule 10 take priority over the other provisions. Tb.ey undoubtedly take priority so long as Y7e remain within the prescribed subject-matter so far as t.he vote is concerned; as regards the ttm-thirds r.1ajority or sirD.ple Lajority we are re:.Cerred to Article 20 oz ~:he Statute; tl1at is one matt.er but is a different r;:atter if a delegation re,:::uests to haVe the case dealt 't'7ith at r::inisterial level ~0 know What rule preventS it fror;: doing so; that was rr~y question and Hr Gonsong has not replied."

The Chairman asked the Representative of Greece c.o repea·:: his quest.ion.

Tne Kepresentative of Greece r.1ade ::he following statement:

"I put a very precise question and I have not had a reply or rather I obtained an ev:asive reply. In this Organisation v7e discuss with exen:plary precision even minor problems and precision is essential when dealing with a t,:ajor problem. Hell, I have put the question to Er Gol song and I repeat it. The Conr.ri.ttee and you lc'lr Chainn.an trill confirm the reply he gives and I vli.ll accept i t 11 •

The Chairman asked ::he Representative of Greece to r:,ake a proposal so that a vote could be taken.

Tli.e Representative of Greece r;:ade the following stater.1ent:

"llr Chairo..an I thought in fact I had r;,ade the proposal just now, but so that there should be no rAsunderstanding I ara willing to do so acain; I ao asking vrl1ether or not in the present case by virtue of Article 4 of the rules of procedure of. the Committee ·of ·l::inisters combined •rith Article 2(3) of the rules of procedure of the l:linisters' Deputies r::.y delegation is authorised ·co apply for this matter to be dealt vrlth at r:'inisterial level and if this is not so, if it is not entitled to rely on this right, I should like to.know by virtue of what principles governing our procedure both at llinisterial and Deputy level I am not entitled to rely on this right. That is ny cmestion and I think it is clear."

The Chainaan feared that it troulcl be difficult to take a vote on a proposal t·mrded in that tray.

Gi.JDel/Concl (77) 270 Acde>:1dur,1

SECRET

The Representative of CY,Prus eade the follovrl.ng sta.teme~<t:

"I:: I remember correctly in 1967 the Cm:rrnittec of Hinisters was about to place on its agenda the '-1uestions of applicetions by the 3candanavians and the Dutch against. Greece. At that ti;;:!e, if I am not ~rrong1 the Cat:mlittee v.;as also sitting under Article 32. I aD :really at a. loss. I do not think the Cor;mrl.ttee can appJy r:,ethods of this nature. In one case appl.ying one practice and in anot~er a different practice. It has been in t4e past, and I '\<rould really like to have confirGntion of this. The Greek governr;_ent finally withdreu and there vJas no question of. discussion. Eut the question vms put to the Com:.:dttee of l:.linisters at the request, I think, at tl-;,at tinle, of the Scandanavian gc;>verncents and the Dutch goverernment. There was no objection on procedural grounds; there v;ras no prcbler.-,_, and t:1.ere could not !1ave been an objection or problem because there is a clear right of o.,_e delegation to include such a question, if it so wishes. Our rules of procedure are ~uite clear, and we cannot vote on the rules of procedure, "!hether they are correct or tr:1ether they are not correct. It is not a -:,:ues~ion of interpretation. \•J"e cannot vote on our rules. The rules have been adopted and ti:.ey are our Bible. Ue :1av2 co abide by them Lr Cl1airman. lie cannot just abolish these doctar.ents~ T'nere -v•ould be just chaos in this Cor::nrl.ttee. It is not possible."

The Representatives of Austria, pe~itt:~l a;.1d France requested t!u!.t the 3ecretaria t. should sueeest the worGfne of ·::he proposal to be put ..:o the vote.

Ac t::e Chairman's request, the Director of 1-11..1r.,an Ri,ghts fomulated·the: '-· first c;.uestion to be put to t!:J.e ,,;t"e 'as fallows:

11vJhether when the Cor:ani ttee of 1:.\inistcrs is exercising the functions conferred on it by Article 32 of the European Convention or. Httt.1.an Rights a questio11 or.. procedure not provided for in the "Rules for the application of Article 32 of the Convention11 can be settled by ·:::~1e autor,:tatic application of ::he rules of procedure governing the activity of the C01.1Lrl. ttee of l:iinisters under the Statute of ::he Council of EuropeH.

The Deputies held a vote on this question the result of which was as follows:.

0 for, 14 against, 2 abstentions.

The Representative of Cl£r.tts said that he had not 'tak~n part in the vote because he had not understood ':he way ir:. vr::ich the Director of Rtn1l£.n Right.s had formulated !:he c~uestion.

At t:1e. Chairr.tan's request the Dir.ector of_ I~~an;, Right;s fon,1Ulated :he second question to be put to the vote as :Collows:

1'Vme·:.:her in the present case the Deputies consider that a delegation is entitled to rely on a rule analogous to that contained in Article 2(3)of · the 11Rules of Procedure for the t:eetings of the t•_:inisters' Deputies:~ or Article 4(b)(ii) of ::he "Rules of Pror.edur~ of the Committee of Einisters".

The.Deputies held a vote on this que:::tion the result of which \vas as foll.ows:

1 f~r, 10 against, 6 abstentions.

'·

SECRET

'· .. •-,·~-- - CL/Del/Concl(77) 276 Add(~ndurc:

The Representative of Cl.£!.~s r"1ade the follovnng statement:

11 Therc Has a s·tatcuent ·u:1ich vms r::.ade cor":etir.~e ago by our Britis:1 colleague on instructions by his Linistry concerning the subc:is:::ion of ~:he Ler.1orial ;:o the Cor:xaission of Huc:.an Rights. As you rightly said, this quest:ion uas put to a vote at the suggestion of ·;:hi~ delegation and it wu: not carried. I t:1ink there were e lot of abstentions.. I "t-10uld very r:.uch like to ask for ·the re-opening of ::he question .. "

The Deputies held a vote on re-opening the discussion on referring tl1.e Turkish GovernL.:entts Ler.:orial to the Europear! Cor:mrl.ssion of Hur:tan Rigl1ts the result of vJhic:1 vms as follov1s:

l~ for, 7 against, 7 abntentions.

The Deputies held 12 vote on the draft cleci:Jion subrdtted by the Belgian deleeation with the following result;

14 for, 2 against, and 1 abst.ention.

The Representative of Sueden E!ade the fc.llo'linng statement as an expla:1.ation of vote:

"'I'he case v1e have jus·i: 'JOted on concernC questions of serioUS violations of hl..ll.:lan rights involving a large nuraber of people. It has many coraplicated political aspects anc ir.J.plications. These facts, together, have rztadc it necessary for the CoriT"littee of r:inisters to study the case with special care~ lTi th this in r,:ind, the Sv7edish Governc:cent has considered it iv.portar.t to corile to a conclusion 't-Jhich contributes ·:::o rees~:ablishing hw...an rights in Cyprus and v.rhich, at t:te same tir.:,e, supports the endeavours to arrive at a reasonable political solution of the Cyprus problem. The conclusion should be in full accord "t<Jith the E~ropean Convention on Htr.1an Rights, under v7hich the Cor;~rdssion of Hur,lan Rigl:.ts as well as the Cor:1ra.it-::.ee of t1linisters have il~~portan·c functions as regards supervision and control of the observance of hum.an rights.,

As the basis for its decision the Corr.rirl.ttee of 1-Jinisters has had tvro important and volur,linous docur:"ents - the report of ;:he Cor£11lissior, and the Eenorial of the Turkish Governaent. Both docu;.:-.ents r.1erit careful study ..

The Turkish 1-:Ieraorial is a new docur.1er~t t·Yhicl1 has not been considered by the Cormsoion.. In t~:c view of the StJcdis:1 authorities it 'tvould have been natural for a docur":ent of this scope and iLportance to be ::he object: of a legal analysis before it vras C:ealt 't'lith by the Cor::n1ittee of t:inisters. The Svredish delegation notes, however, that a r:cajority of ·;:he Cor"-:r.ti. ttee of llinisters has chosen to take a decision in this r.'atter without the benefit of advice fr01::1 legal experts concerning this new docttaent.

T)Del/Concl (77) 2.76 AdJenclum

3EC:lliT

Tbe report of t!le Cor.mission is b2sed on extensive takinr; of e'Tidence and a d ~t.,"l, ·"·"'1-----r- '= ·.•,.., •• ··','····"' I·- ... ·., -~-,~.· .. ·o··!?'··-:- .... ~"c·'~-·· t'"'l-: .... .:;·.l.'o--· ,_ ....... "' ""'.._ cc a ...... "'~·-"" ... -~ ...... CJ'.!.~~--c'-'• •- ~--- c;:> ........ o ••. ~· ... .,;; <J•~· ~ ............. ~~~·... •·

. would :1av~ been decir2ble for ::l1e Cor.1mittce of Einisters to s:~ate ~rhich argu::1ents and findinss by the Cor:mssioa i~ could accept •. !t goes "rithout saying that, wher ... acting under Article 32 of the Convention on Hur.:ai1. Rights, the Cm~-:r,1ission, arid later the Cor::r,U.ttee of Einisters, can state their opinion only on -v;hether tLc defendant state has 'Tiolated the convention or net. Allegations regarding violations CO'..::r<'.it~ed by other States or persons cannot be the object of their consideration.

As can be conCluded fror.: the~::e obeervatio:1s, it has been cliJJficul t for t!1e Svredish delegation to decide v:rheth:;r or not to _::..ry to stres::; the formal aspec::s of the case and to propose a resolution in w!'lich the Comr.:it::ee of 1-~inisters specifics the violations of ::he Convention on HUL.12n Ri&::.ts ~1:·J.ich have taken place,. He consider, ho't1ever, th2t the Belgian proposal is a constructive one in the particular circumst2nces of this whole issue. The resolution obviously enjoys considerable support and 't'<e do not 'tvish to oppose it. He hope ~~hat. t!~e findings and recor::nendations 'tvhich it contains ,,rill be fully t2ken into account by all pcrties."

The Representative of Greece r;ade dee follo"t-ring stateuent. c ·--------

111-lr C:lairraan, r.;y dele[;ation i.1as t2ker:. par·:: neither in the indicative nor in tha final vote. The reason is siu.ple. l~y delesation considers that 2ll this procedure is invalid as it is a procedure- which has been started and applied in fl2grant viol2tion of Article 32 of the Convention on }lum.an Rights and in flagr2nt violation of :.::1c provisiOns of the rules of procedure by w·hich 'tve are eoverned. For these reasons rc:y delegation abstained and did not vote because it considers ;:hat to t2ke part in 2 vote 't·rhicl1 is irrer:;ular has not and could r.ot have any value. On this occ2sion, Vr Chairman_,. I 'IOUld .like to ac~e :::lc.t. oy delczatiot1 cc::sic~cl"S ·t~lC.t the rcsul ::• c2 ·::;is procedure, even if it is only an interi~ decision as regards the present case, nevertheless r.:arks a step in the decline of htr.,an rig..\ts and this is regrettable." · ·

The Representative of ,cyprus 1:1adc the follo~1ing statement:

"Before I explain r,;y vote I ~muld like -:::o clarify another pointoTh:: CO'".:.ll:littec -·"-~ ccciccd by .::: ~ .. .:'.5o::L:~r of ll~ en tl::: '<:1::::·:: of t::.c ccci:::iori "rlcic:~ f.;j_ !Jefore u:::. An the CO't:i.Lrl.ttee knows, l,.ir ChairL:an, t:1e position of this cleler;ation han all along been t:12t l1e have not fully 1>trictly adhered J:o the provisions of Article.32. ·For this reason we consider that this decision should not· be published for ::he interests. of the Council of Europe, and of the Cornnrl.ttee of l:inisters. I uould therefore like to put forward fonndly on be~121f of ::his delegation t~e request for this Gecision not to be published. As you kno\'1, unanirdty is necessary for the publication of decisions. One of the reasons for •rhich this delegation believes -:::hat no publica ·=:ion should be given, ap2rt fror.;. the reasons t::at I have stated, is that ~'7e

believe that since this is r.:ore or lese, as it clearly stated in the decision, an interim reply, ::he question is gcinr:; to ba e=::emined in 9 t:~onthst time. 'He do not think that publication shculd be t;iven."

SEC~ill'£

f,:: -r ... ' GL/Del/Concl (77) 276

Aclc~endu:;:

The C!1ainian said i:::: 't7aS clear that botl1 t:1e discussion on this :~1attcr and tl1e 'aecision were secreto

The of the Cot:Y,littec said :.:1!at it >-ms his understandinG tbat no Bention 'tlO e r.m e o .. tne Gecision in the Lain Conclusions., The decision 't:roulcl only appear in the secret addendu.:: to the Conclusions.

The Representative o£ the UPf.t;e,d. J~i.n,Edor:~ e:~plained thnt he had abstained on instructions for the reasons eiven in his earlier intervention.

The Representative o:Z PZE~~s made the follo't:ring stater.1ent:

11In r,'.y e:~planation of LY vote I have been instructed to r:~ake the following s ta ter.1en t.

lly Government deeply regrets the fact that the Cor.:r..U.ttee rejected our request for tine to enable. us to car.ry out the necessary ?nd custon:ary consultations. Ey Governt:J.ent fails to understand or to explain the great haste on ti.1e par::_ of the Conr.:rl. ttee or of a group of dcleeations within the Cor.::mi ttee to proceed and vote ir~r.1ecliately on a draft 'irhich was presented only yest~rday. It is true that r,:y Governr.,e::lt has been pressing for an early decision, but as 1 said yesterday for a decision in application of Article 32 of ·::he Convention. I have heen instructed to state here and no~1 that the Con.1ittee intentionally· failed to apply strictly Article 32, in other words the ConrJittee, whose responsibility is ti.1e protection and safeguard of l1u:,:.an rights, itself clid not fulfill ::1-:.e task entrusted to ;1. t by the Conve.ntion This is, 1-:ir President, a r:.os:: dangerou!j course of action and it constitutes a precedent that ~ay lead to an undesirable state of affairs in the future. By :reZusinc to co-operate "t·7it!--:. the COt:"t:c:ission, in violation of Article 28, a High Contracting Party found by t:H~ Cor:nnission guilty of violations, 't-:rill k~ow that its violation of Article. _2G 1-1ill prove to be to its advantage 1-1:1en it cor.1es to the Cor;::r,1i.ttee of 11inisters. Such a state of affairs exposes ·;.:he Convention of Htt:.1an Rights and t:he system set up under the Convention for the protection of such rights to erea t dangers. You 1:1ay not 't-rish to see EY fears no't7, but t:1e tit.J.e r.:ay cm:-;.e in t:he future - and I sincerely hope 1 am wrong - 't7hen the Cor:u:rl.ttee uill" :rezret the weakening - I do not 'tvant to use other "trords - of -~:he Converrtion, whic:1 as everybody has stated fror:: tirae to time, constitutes the corner-stone of the Cow1cil and of European order.

Ue are of the opinion t:1at if the Coi::J:J.ittee had d.oubts as to the Cor;n.nissionts conclusions, it l:ad every possibility at its disposal. Rule l• of ::he Rules edopted by the cor,-u11itt:ee of Uinisters for d1e application of Article 32 pr~vides as follows:

CE/Del/Concl(77)276 Addendum

SECP..ET

... .. .

lllJ1.1ile the Cor;mrl.ttee of lliniste.rs r:.ust have all t!<e necessary pcrtv-ers to reach a decision on a report of the Cotur.rl.ssion, neverthelesc, it r.:.ay not itself wish to undertake the task of ·;:a!dng evidence etc, s!1ould ·::he need arise. rt1e procedure to be followed in such a case will be decided ad r-.oc11 •

The Corilr.::ittee in its task to find l:rhet!1er a High Contracting Party has •Jiola ted the Convention has 't-7ide po"'re:rs.

It is recognised that the COli.'lrJ.ittee in applying Article 32 is a serai-judicial organ but nobody can argue that political considerations should be allowed to becor;,e reasons ~or not applying the Convention. On the basis of the Coomissionts Report the Cor.:r.1ittec has to say in clear and zir.:ple terms t7hether a High. Contracting Party has •1iolated the Convention. I~ t~.c Ccr.s: . .ittcc ::..: ::-~o·t: Gntis=icc! ~::~ .. a.t:1r:r -7iclc.ti~~::.J ~~c-:}·.:; tn.l:cr1 :?lc~c it. r.n;j c.l.so .1~at~ it.

I do not want to analyse the_responsibilities of the Cor~ttee deriving ::ror.'l. article 32. 11y colleague, Er Loucaidcs did that yesterday and with your pen:dssion he "t>Tould like to add a fe't-7 't-mrds today.

Before I conclude I am instructed to refer to the last paragraph of the decision which reads "If in 9 EiOnths' tir.1e tl1e situation so requires, the Cocmttee reserves the right to place ::his catter again on its agenda in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Convention. 11

'I'l"lis means that if l'lithin 9 rnonths t:!e r<~casures referred to in paragraph 3 of the decision are not taken then t~c Cor,mdttee reserves the right to place the rnatter on its anenda in order to apply Article 32(3) of the Convention. ·

I 1;.ave been instructed to express ~he hope that l'Yithin the period of 9 r:Lonths Turkey "t<rill take measures to put an end to the violations. Otherwise the Con:r.1ittee will be called upon to 11decide by a najority of 2/3 't'rhat effect shall be given to its original decision and shall publish t~'le report".

It is evident, llr Chairman, that the measures that should and could be taken by Turkey are the follovdng:

1. Return of the refueees to their hor:;es a•1d properties 2. Compensation to ·::he far:rl.lies of ::he dead persons 3. Cor..1pensation :':or ~:~1e dest~Uction of property l~. Compensation fol;' ill- treatr;1ent 5. Facilities for tracing of r:2issing persons 6. Cor.tpensation for detention of persons.

If by 21 July 1970, ie 9 t:tonths fror,, no"t-T, the above measures have been taken, then 'Hr. Chairman it vdll not be necessary to put this question again on the agenda of the CO!.ir.littee of t:inisters. 11

SECRET

• .. - !~7 -

Nr Loucaides rt;.ade the :Collo't'iling s ::ater.1cnt:

CL/Del/ CN~cl (77) /.76 Acldendur: '

11Th.e 1:1aintenance of hurJan richts and fundaracntal freedoms is more '.:l:an an objective of :::1c Council of Eul.'ope; it is part of the basic philosopl1y of the organisation and an actual condition of r:1.embership. That is v:rhy the Council waa rnising e~~pectatio~G for a clear and effective decision by its r1ighest orr;an in this unique case of flaerant -..riolations of hucan richts by one of its nCI1.1ber States, ie Turkey., Ti1e Cor:'li:rl.ttee of Uinisters ho'tvever has failed to carry out its responsibilities and 1::as thus eiven a se-vere legal blo'tJ ::o the European Convention for ·::he protection of Hll'ri':.an Rights and a creat disappointuent to ::I1e thousands of victiw.s it: Cyprus 't"711o l'lad placed ereat !1opes in tl1C CoUl'lcil of Europe.

The Cornmittee ·!las under Article 32 of the Convention a well c.':efined ccxapetence and obligation to deal 't'Ji.tl1 the present case, uhich is nothing else then the violations of :"!u-;1.an rights by Turkey on the basis of Applications 6780/7l} and 6950/75, as established before the .Cor:1rai::JSion of Hur.1an Riehts in· accordance l1ith its Report subrdtted to the Conrrdttee under Article 31 of the Convention.

B:r the Decision, l7hich is unacceptable, t:1e Comrdttee deviates frotn its competence anc oblieations under Article 32; in fact it is acting contrary to i:he provisions thereof for the :Zollolring reasons, 't'Jhich I had t:1e opportunity to explain to you yesterday:

1. In deciding uhether there has been a violation '::If the Conventiot:~-, the Coil'lli.'.ittee has tal~en into consideration alleeat.ions and material included in the so called Eenorial filed by Tur~~ey '1t7hich because cf its nature and the procedure Zollotred in respect thereof, should have been ca::pletely disrer:;arded as incor::patible "tJith the r,:acllinery of investir;ation established under the Convention (Articles 24, 26 and 32 and para.er.a.phs 1-8 of our observations sul::nit-:.:ed on 14 June 1977) as l>Tell as the principles of fair hearing;

2. Turkey refused to co-operate 'lt7itit the COliJr.1ission as envisaged by Article 20 of the Conventiono Yet the C01.11ruittee did not find violation of the provisions of that Article by Turkey;

3. The Resolutiort docs not describe properly tl1e pro~eedines before it in that no reference is made to the respondent State;

4. The Conmittce docs not specify the violations found to have be~n established, as required by necessary implication, followine a correct construction o:: Article 32 in conjunction lri.th the preceec'.ing Articles 24-31. The non opacification of the violations r.:.akes the r.1achincry of Article 32 inoperative {parat;rapi:lS 3 and. l} and Rule 5);

ClJDel/Concl (77) 276 Add~:,ndttci

SECRET

- l:.[: -

5. The cor.cittce does not name the guilty party as required clearly by Article 32 (paragrap!1s 2, 3, 4 and Rule :). This is also against ·all precedent (see the Greek case Resolution DH(70)I);

6. Althoueh ·1iolations were foun-d, 1·.o period ~;ras prescribed durine "1hich ;:he euil ty party !:ihould take measure·s to rer,:edy the violations (Article 32.2);

7. The L:casures \"Jere not specified (cor.:pensation, return of refugees, investigations for Lissing persons etc); and no distinction uas rt:ade betw~en pas:: violations and continuing violations for purposes of the required 1-r:easures; a-11d

8. Instead of askinc; e~:pressly the cuilty state to remedy t~1e situation, it asks the victir.1s of .the violations to do that.

For. these reasons we consider t:1at the Comr.1ittee of t2inisters by t:1e Decision in question, renders the proceedinr;s for investieation of violations of human rig..\ts and, in particular, ':he :.:ac:·dnery provided by Article 32, ineffective and the Convention r.:,eaninr;less.. In fact one has no hope any r.10re to ge·t any redress under the Convention once the mass violations in Cyprus have resulted in a decision whicll docs not even nar.1e the r;uilty party. Ht.lr.lan rishts l1ave been sacrificed to political expediency.

It is only to be i1opcd that this interie decision will eventually be changed into a r,10re effective one, givins real redress e:o the victims of the violations >: ~.-:.lL.E..:: ris::ts :.:-_ Cyp:t~: iz: l:t:-.:·. 1:-:~~:"l tl1e p:toVisi :: .. ;; o£ L.r·!:i.cl,:: :/?.. '::'~1ich. according to the Director of Htn:.:an Right::;, 11l1ave not yet been ~m!1austed in ti1is casc11 •

lhe Representative of ~u,;kez mde the following statement;

"I have listened "t:d. th interest and sor.1e astonishr.1ent to the analytical statements t!tadc by llessrs. Pilavachi and Loucaides. The fonacr painted an optimistic and very subjective picture of t:1e provisions of the decision just adop·::ed by the Committee. He ascribed to that te:~t intentions '1hich it had never contained and of ~1hic~1 those \·1ho drafted it had never tlwught. If l1r. Pilavachits interpretation reflects the true raeaning of the te;~t, I t-7onder Hl1y he opposed it. so energetically durinr; the past t't-J'O

de.ya. I have t:1e impression that "1hcn he gave up hope of sabotazinr; the acloption of !:he draft decision, he decided after its adoption to attribut~ to it a ver':/ different r.1eaning 't<rhich in no 't>Tay corresponded to his O\om

authorities' dosi~n~a. ----... ··

SECRET

- l:.) .. Cl)Dcl/Concl(77) 276 Adc'!.enduL:c

Ir.vuediately after hiu, llr. Louceides, a \1ell-known jurist, ·uho has not the sane approach and political fl~dbili ty as Er. Pilavachi, outlined a very sombre and pessicistic picture of o::1e decision in his technical jargon. Ttro parallel but discordant voices. I ha~Te to admit that I clid not understand who "imS speaking on be~1alf of \•7hom. Perhaps, \-le shall understand r.:ore clearly "i7her. t:1e conclusions ha·Je been duly ataended and eiven t!1eir final form. ·

As for my deleeation l7hich voted against the draft decision, al ::hough it reacted negatively to"t-rards the te:ct it Has mainly prompted by forcal and te:ctual concerna. The Turkish Goverm~1ents have always thought that the Cyprus dispute, in all its aspects, including ~hose concerning hur,mn ri&1ts, could be finally solved only in a bi-lateral context as a resul;.:. of inter­coLununal talks. Probl~~s relating to Huoan Rights questions appeared on

• ::he agenda for these neaotiations 'tvhich HaS prepared as early as January 1977 in Hicosia during the first Ii\eeting between the late Archbishop Eakarios and President Denktasho

Today r.1y government is r:1ore detennined than ever to remain faithful to this policy of peace, harr.1ony and co-operation between all the parties concerned in the Cyprus case and to encourage the pr~~pt resur~ption of negotiations betlreen the t·uo cor.-r..1unities in a new spirit of deterr.:tination, courage and political ac\lrJ.len."

Decision

The Ccnnmittee of Einisters has exanti.ned applications ntrubers 6780/74 and 6950/75 filed by thG Republic of Cyprus after the events of 197l~.

It has like~ri.sc ·::aken into consideration the Cotr.mission' c report as \7ell as the memorial qf the Republic of Turkey on the question of Huc1an Rights in Cyprus.

The Cor.:mittee finds that certain events ~{hich occured in Cyprus constitute violations of ~he European Convention :Cor the Protection of Human Rig.l-tts. Consequently, it asks that r.:easures be tal~e.n in order to put an end to such violations as r.~:i3ht continue occur and so that such events are not repeated.

In this respect, tl1e C~:JILti.ttee of llinisters considers that the er.during protection of Hur:tan Rizhts in Cyprus calls for the re-establishr.1e11t of peace and confidence between the two comr:nmities on the island. It therefore strone;ly urges the parties to rest.Jr.le intercommunal talks "Vri.th the minim.tun oZ clelay •

. If in 9 months' tir::e the situation so requires, the Coo::dttee reserves the right to place tl1is r;,atter again on its agenda, in accordance "iri.th thG provisions of Article 32 of the Convention.