CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF        Application No. 15299/89              Application No. 15300/89      introduced on 21 July 1989            introduced on 21 July 1989      by Metropolitan CHRYSOSTOMOS,         by Archimandrite Georgios         Bishop of Kitium                      PAPACHRYSOSTOMOU      against Turkey                        against Turkey      registered on 25 July 1989            registered on 25 July 1989                           Application No. 15318/89                         introduced on 22 July 1989                         by Titina LOIZIDOU                         against Turkey                         registered on 31 July 1989           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 March 1991 the following members being present:                MM.   C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J.A. FROWEIN                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              MM.   C.L. ROZAKIS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the declaration made by Turkey under Article 25 of the Convention on 28 January 1987;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 July 1989 by Metropolitan CHRYSOSTOMOS, Bishop of Kitium, against Turkey and registered on 25 July 1989 under file No. 15299/89;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 July 1989 by Archimandrite Georgios PAPACHRYSOSTOMOU against Turkey and registered on 25 July 1989 under file No. 15300/89;           Having regard to the application introduced on 22 July 1989 by Titina LOIZIDOU against Turkey and registered on 31 July 1989 under file No. 15318/89;           Having regard to the Commission's decisions of 9 November 1989 that the applications should be joined and brought to the notice of the respondent Government and that the Government be invited to submit written observations on the applications;           Having regard to the respondent Government's observations of 28 February 1990 and the applicants' observations in reply of 6 May (Applications Nos. 15299/89 and 15300/89) and 11 May 1990 (Application No. 15318/89);           Having regard to the applicants' further written observations of 18 December 1990;           Having regard to the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 11 January 1991;           Having deliberated on 11 January and 4 March 1991;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   I.      Particular circumstances of the applications     Application No. 15299/89           The first applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1938 and residing in Larnaca.   He is represented by Dr. K. Chrysostomides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.           The facts of the case, as they have been stated by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   1.       On 19 July 1989 - the day preceding the 15th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus - the Women's Pancyprian Movement "Return" organised a demonstration aimed at proclaiming the refugees' right to return to their homes.   They intended to walk into and remain in the "buffer zone" through the night until dawn, the time when the first Turkish paratroopers landed on Cypriot soil on 20 July 1974.   The "buffer zone" is a strip of land between the military posts of the occupying Turkish army and the national guard of the Republic of Cyprus, at present under the responsibility of the United Nations Forces in Cyprus known as UNFICYP.   2.       At 5.45 p.m. the first applicant officiated together with other clergymen over religious prayers for the missing persons in the Church of Saint Kassianos, in the area controlled by the Government of Cyprus. These followed a memorial service for those killed during the invasion in 1974 and laying of wreaths.   The congregation consisted of women. Around 6.15 p.m. the women left the Church of Saint Kassianos.   The first applicant finished with the vespers at approximately 7 p.m.   3.       The first applicant was then asked to officiate over a prayer for the missing persons and pray at the derelict church of Saint George where in the meantime many women had gathered.   The chapel of Saint George is situated in the buffer zone, in the yard of the school of Saint Kassianos.   When the first applicant entered the church members of UNFICYP saluted him.   4.       While he was proceeding with the prayers Turkish troops together with Turkish Cypriot "policemen" suddenly charged into the church and started to indiscriminately hit everybody who was present. The first applicant, while still in the church, was brutally beaten with gun butts and clubs and kicked by his captors.   A blow with a club on his head hurled his priest's cap on the ground.   As he was trying to pick it up, they continued to beat him and kick him with their knees, swore at him and humiliated him.   A "policeman" grabbed his wrist, twisted it and painfully forced him to walk on.   5.       When dragged away, the first applicant saw a great number of civilians, sheltered by Turkish troops, who started to attack him, to spit on him, to swear at him and to ill-treat him with punches.   He received a blow on his right ear which caused a wound that took about five days to heal.   6.       He was led to a car and, together with the second applicant and many women who had also been captured, taken to "Pavlides Garage" in Nicosia.   7.       At Pavlides Garage the captors tried to remove the first applicant's personal belongings, the cross and the pectoral cross. He refused to hand these over.   A mob was throwing stones on the garage and one stone fell into the interior, but nobody was hurt.   8.       At 1 a.m. on 20 July they began to interrogate the first applicant.   The interrogation lasted for about 40 minutes.   The interrogators asked questions in Greek and kept their notes in Turkish. The first applicant refused to sign these notes.   When asked whether he would join another march he replied that he would go to any peaceful march because he did not recognise any boundaries that were set by force and the might of arms;   he had done nothing wrong but was simply present at a holy temple, praying for the missing and the dead people.   9.       At around 2 a.m. the first and the second applicants were brought to the police station known as "Seragio" in Nicosia.   They were led into an office and left during the whole of the remaining night hours sitting on two chairs.   In the morning two interpreters came into the office and behaved in a provocative way.   The first applicant refused to accept breakfast.   10.      In the afternoon of 20 July 1989 the first applicant was told that he would be presented to a "court".   He was taken into a large room on the ground floor and charged with illegal entry into the area of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and violation of military zone A.   The "prosecutor" requested that the first applicant be further detained for three days in order to complete investigations and the "judge" granted two days.   11.      The first applicant was then transported to the prison known as "Ortagiogou" and detained in a cell together with four other persons.   At around 7 p.m. he was visited by the "Minister of Justice". He requested to be seen by a doctor as he was suffering from influenza. The doctor promised to send antibiotics and aspirins, but they did not arrive.   12.      Immediately afterwards all detainees were lined up in order to be counted.   After a while they were again lined up so that the officer could establish that all were present.   At around 11.30 p.m. they began to open files.   At around 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. on 21 July the detainees were woken up in order to have their photographs taken and they were otherwise disturbed throughout the night.   13.      At around 10 a.m. the first applicant was led to the "court". An interpeter was present.   The first applicant contested the jurisdiction of the "court" of an illegal regime not recognised by any state or international organisation.   He complained that he had been illegally arrested in his own State while praying in a church, in an area controlled by the United Nations, and declared that he was innocent.   14.      The first witness stated that he was the military officer responsible for the area in which the first applicant had been arrested, that the first applicant had violated the boundaries of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and that he had seen that the first applicant was on "Turkish ground" at the time of the arrest. When the first applicant asked the witness whether he knew that the first applicant was in the area controlled by UNFICYP, the "judge" did not allow the question.   Later the witness stated that he had not seen where the first applicant was arrested.   15.      The first applicant refused to cross-examine the other witnesses in order to avoid the impression that he recognised the jurisdiction of the "court".   The "court" reserved its judgment.   16.      The first applicant was taken back to prison.   He received a towel from the Red Cross and some food.   In the afternoon the prisoners were visited by representatives of the United Nations.   17.      The first applicant was then searched and again brought to the "court".   The "judge" reading out the "decision" had to interrupt the pronouncement because a mob outside was shouting "murderer priest", "traitor priest" and "hand over the priest to us".   The first applicant was pronounced "guilty".   He repeated that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of the "court" and that he had been arrested unlawfully on Cypriot territory when performing religious duties and demonstrating peacefully.   The "judge" recalled her finding that the first applicant had been arrested on Turkish ground.   When the mob approached the "court room" the "judge" interrupted the proceedings and received a Reuter representative, who had been watching the "trial", in her office.   18.      When the "judge" returned the first applicant again complained of his arrest.   In the presence of three United Nations' representatives he requested protection of the United Nations.   The "judge" observed that protection was offered by the "State police". The "court's sentence" was three days' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 CYP, or ten days' detention in default.   19.      The bus in which the first applicant was driven back to the prison was attacked by the mob and a stone hit the glass window.   20.      On Sunday 23 July the first applicant requested permission to conduct prayers with the prisoners.   As contact with the female prisoners was refused prayers were held with only the male prisoners present.   21.      On 24 July mass was interrupted by a "prison officer".   The first applicant received vestments and the holy ware from United Nations' representatives but was told by the prison director that he was prohibited from praying and officiating service.   The applicant addressed a protest to the United Nations and from that moment abstained from taking any food or accepting any medical attendance.   22.      On 25 July the doctor came round to examine all prisoners. The first applicant refused to be examined.   At around 11.30 a.m. he was again interrogated.   Later on that day, they took his personal belongings, watches, crosses and chains from him.   23.      On 26 July the first applicant again refused to be medically examined while being denied the right to pray.   Around noon he was put into isolation on the ground that he should not have declared a hunger strike.   He was locked up in a dark and stiflingly hot cell until the morning of the following day.   24.      On 27 July the first applicant was taken to a room where his interrogators, a doctor and the director of the prison were present. He refused to be examined by the doctor or to take any food and was locked up in a cell 2 x 1.5 metres large which was dark and dirty. He was told that they would bring his personal belongings from the previous cell as well as a sheet for the bed, but they never did. The first applicant was left in that cell until he was visited by a representative of the United Nations.   He was then taken to his previous cell and told that his punishment of isolation had ended.   He complained to a United Nations' representative in the presence of the director of the prison of the isolation and the conditions of his detention. The director of the prison stated that prisons have their own regulations.   Later in the afternoon the first applicant was informed by the United Nations' representives that he would be released on 3 August.   In the evening he fainted and was sick.   He still refused medical examination or any assistance from the "policemen".   Dr. A.C., a co-prisoner, assisted him a lot.   25.      On 28 July, a Friday, food was placed on the applicant's bedside.   When he refused to take any, they insisted and a TV crew came to film shots showing that he had food.   26.      In the afternoon of 29 July, when brought into the office of the prison director the first applicant again refused to be examined by a doctor.   The director of the prison said that he could have a shower and get ready because he would be released at around 8.30 p.m. At 8 p.m. he was told that release had been postponed until the following day.   He was again offered food which he refused.   In the evening he fainted again and received help from the second applicant.   27.      On 30 July he was searched and taken into the office of the director of the prison.   A TV crew was present but the first applicant refused to make any statements.   28.      After his release he was taken to Larnaca Hospital for five days for exhaustion.   Application No. 15300/89           The second applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1949 and residing at Nicosia.   He is represented by Dr. K. Chrysostomides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.           The facts of the case, as they have been stated by the second applicant, may be summarised as follows:     1.       On 19 July 1989 the second applicant, together with the first applicant, conducted the religious service in the derelict church of Saint George in the "buffer zone".   When approaching the church they had not been stopped by the two United Nations' officers, who had saluted them in a military fashion.   2.       When Turkish troops and "policemen" started beating the women with electrically charged clubs the second applicant tried to protect the women.   He was beaten mercilessly and thrown on the ground.   The troops tore apart his vestments and stepped on his priest's cap whilst they continued to kick him, hit him and spit on him.   The bruises from their beating did not disappear for a long time and lumps remained on his left leg.   One of the Turks grabbed his beard and pulled it unceasingly until a bunch of hair was uprooted.   A Turk wearing a camouflage uniform with dark complexion punched him so violently in the face that he felt great pain and lost his glasses.   3.       The second applicant was led to a bus through the mob that swore, gestured at him and spat on him.   He was holding in his hands the pieces of his ragged vestments and his cap which could no longer be worn.   His vestments were full of spitting and so was his face. Whilst he was taken to the bus the mob was beating him continuously. He was taken to "Pavlides Garage".   The mob had gathered outside the garage, shouted, threatened and threw stones on the windows and the roof creating panic and fear among the prisoners.   One stone broke through the roof and fell into the garage.   At one moment the troops allowed the mob to break into the garage but later they pushed them back.   4.       At 1 a.m. in the morning of 20 July they came to interrogate the second applicant.   They were asking questions in Greek and one interrogator took notes in Turkish.   The second applicant refused to sign the notes.   At around 2 a.m. the second applicant was taken together with the first applicant to the "police station" known as "Seragio".   They were left with one guard who was later replaced by another one.   Two of the persons who visited them during that night were very provocative.   At 2.30 p.m. they were ordered to go downstairs for presentation to "court".   5.       The "court" proceedings were short.   The "judge", requested to prolong detention for another three days for further interrogations, granted two days' prolongation.   6.       The second applicant was then driven to a prison known as "Seragio" where he was visited by the "Minister of Justice".     7.       On 21 July he was woken up at 1 a.m. and taken to a hall so that he could write down his name.   Later he was brought before the "court".   The first applicant spoke on behalf of the group.   The witnesses lied.   The "court decision" was reserved.   8.       Back in prison the second applicant received a towel from the Red Cross.   After midnight he was woken up and photographed holding a sign with his name.   9.       On 22 July the detainees were disturbed in their morning prayers by loud radio music of the guards.   In the afternoon they were visited by the United Nations' representatives.   10.      Later the second applicant was again brought before the "court".   The uproar of the mob outside was so loud that the "judge" interrupted the reading of her "decision".   The second applicant was pronounced "guilty".   The sentence was three days' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 CYP, or ten days' detention in default.   At the exit of the "court" the detainees were attacked by the mob.   Stones hit the windscreen of the bus and broke it.   The bus changed route and at high speed drove back to the prison.   11.      On Sunday 23 July the male detainees held prayers and a memorial service, the clergymen having been refused access to the female detainees.   On 24 July prayers were stopped by a prison officer and the second applicant was told that they were prohibited.   He then went on a hunger strike and only drank water and refused examination by the prison doctor.   On 25 July he was again interrogated.   12.      On 26 July the second applicant was informed that according to prison regulations after 48 hours of hunger strike all hunger strikers are examined by a doctor.   He refused saying that he would only accept an examination by a doctor practising in the Republic of Cyprus or at least a doctor of the United Nations.   They then took away all his personal belongings, watch, pen, keys and cross.   13.      On 27 July the second applicant again refused food and a medical examination.   He was led to a horrible cell of 2 x 1.5 metres, dark with a small light window very high up, and was locked up.   The guard promised to bring him his personal belongings from the other cell, i.e. towel etc., but never did.   In the afternoon he was taken out to meet a group of Turkish journalists.   Subsequently he was visited by United Nations' representatives who told him that he would be released on 3 August.   14.      On 28 July two Turkish convicts came to clean the cell. They brought a tray with some chicken, potatoes, bread, onions and salad which they placed on the bedside table.   The second applicant had a back problem because of the beatings which had kept him sitting on a chair for the last three previous nights.   A television team filmed the food.   15.      On 29 July the second applicant again refused to be medically examined.   16.      On 30 July the second applicant's personal belongings were returned to him.   He was searched and released at about 11.30 a.m.   Application No. 15318/89           The third applicant is a Cypriot citizen born in 1949 and residing at Nicosia.   She is represented by Mr. Achileas Dimitriades, a lawyer practising in Nicosia.           The facts of the case, as they have been stated by the third applicant, may be summarised as follows:   1.       On a number of dates between July 1967 and April 1974 the plots of land Nos. 4609, 4610, 4618, 4619, 4748, 4884, 5002, 5004, 5386, 5390 in the district of Kyrenia in Cyprus had been donated or purchased by the third applicant's father and were registered in her name as owner. The applicant is still the owner of these plots.   2.       The third applicant grew up in Kyrenia with her family.   She married in 1972 and moved with her husband to Nicosia.   She visited her family frequently, intending to develop the property her father had given her in Kyrenia and return there to live.   Construction had actually begun on plot No. 5390, and one of the flats was intended for her family.   3.       The 1974 invasion deprived the third applicant of access to and use of her property and of the right to enjoy her home town and move and live freely with her family and the Kyrenian people.   4.       The third applicant's opposition to the continuous violation of her basic human rights and the division of the island by the Turkish troops, as well as her wish to see Cyprus reunified and to return to Kyrenia found expression in the aims and goals of the "Women Walk Home" movement.   She participated in each of the four marches organised by "Women Walk Home", in Spring 1975, in June and November 1987, and on 19 March 1989.   On all four occasions she was prevented from walking home by the Turkish troops.   5.       On 19 March 1989 the third applicant, leading a group of some fifty participants in the march, advanced towards the Church of the Holy Cross (Stavros) in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus.   They passed the United Nations' guard post, but further on unarmed Turkish soldiers tried to prevent them from continuing.   The group persisted, but when they reached the churchyard the soldiers surrounded them and they were unable to move any further up the hill.   6.       The women all sat down calmly and the third applicant reminded everyone to be quiet.   As they sat there, holding white flags, the Turkish army was gradually replaced by members of the Turkish Cypriot "police force", who advanced wearing helmets and carrying shields and clubs.   7.       The Turkish army and so-called police then started pushing them down the hill.   The third applicant too was pushed and two "policemen" took hold of her.   She was carried round to the west side of the hill and deposited on the ground with other women.   A Turkish officer who was in charge of the situation asked them if they needed anything.   Two United Nations' officers were also there to reassure the women that they would make all the necessary arrangements for their release. The women sat there for about two hours, while negotiations took place between the United Nations' representatives, the Turkish army, and the "police".   8.       Eventually, the group was split up and the third applicant was put into an ambulance with six or seven other women.   They were escorted by two Turkish Cypriot "policewomen" and a United Nations' officer.   The ambulance took them first to the village of Lourougina, where a great many Turkish Cypriots and settlers (identifiable by their clothes) were demonstrating - apparently a pre-arranged counter-demonstration. They were held up in a traffic jam, with some of these people banging on the ambulance and gesticulating at the women to go away.   The ambulance stopped at Lourougina "police station" at the north entrance of the village.   One could clearly see soldiers in blue berets lined up there.   They had no blue United Nations' badges and were Turkish commandos.   9.       The car went back to Nicosia.   Near the Ledra Palace they waited for a further two hours or more.   Before their release they passed one by one before a United Nations' doctor, who asked if anyone had been injured.   The third applicant had nothing to report on that score.   10.      The women were eventually all brought to the free area of the Republic through Nicosia International Airport, where the third applicant's family was waiting for her.   It was midnight by this time.   Further submissions by the applicants           The applicants claim that their detention and all other acts complained of were carried out by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus or by forces acting under their authority.           In support of their submissions the applicants have filed a number of statements, photographs and other documents.   Statement by the respondent Government on the facts alleged in the applications           The respondent Government refute the applicants' account of the facts.   They submit that the alleged events relate to a demonstration organised with the knowledge of the Greek Cypriot authorities.   The demonstration was designed as an attack against the neutral zone and the territory of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".   The press in Southern Cyprus stressed the aggressive nature of the demonstration. The Turkish forces stationed on the island under the Treaty of Guarantee did not intervene during the events of 19 July 1989 and had nothing to do with those events.   Only the United Nations' forces and the security forces of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" were in contact with the demonstrators.   COMPLAINTS           The first and the second applicants complain about their detention, ill-treatment, the conditions in which they were kept and the subsequent proceedings.   They allege violations of Articles 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13 of the Convention.           The third applicant alleges violations of Article 3 (degrading treatment) and Article 5 of the Convention and a continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   She states with regard to the six months' rule (Article 26 of the Convention) that the violation of Article 8 took place on 19 March 1989 and that Turkey, by refusing the applicant access to her property, has gradually, over the last 16 years, affected the rights of the applicant as a property owner and in particular her right to a peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, thus constituting a continuing violation of Article 1 (submissions of 18 December 1990, paras. 23 and 24).   II.       Turkey's declaration under Article 25 of the Convention   1.       On 28 January 1987 the Government of Turkey deposited the following declaration with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention:           "The Government of Turkey, acting pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, hereby declares to accept the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive petitions according to Article 25 of the Convention subject to the following:   (i)      the recognition of the right of petition extends only to allegations concerning acts and omissions of public authorities in Turkey performed within the boundaries of the territory to which the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey is applicable;   (ii)     the circumstances and conditions under which Turkey, by virtue of Article 15 of the Convention, derogates from her obligations under the Convention in special circumstances must be interpreted, for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, in the light of Articles 119 to 122 of the Turkish Constitution;   (iii)    the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration shall not comprise matters regarding the legal status of military personnel and in particular, the system of discipline in the armed forces;   (iv)     for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under this declaration, the notion of 'a democratic society' in paragraphs 2 of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the     Convention must be understood in conformity with the principles laid down in the Turkish Constitution and in particular its Preamble and its Article 13;   (v)      for the purpose of the competence attributed to the Commission under the present declaration, Articles 33, 52, and 135 of the Constitution must be understood as being in conformity with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.           This declaration extends to allegations made in respect of facts, including judgments which are based on such facts which have occurred subsequent to the date of deposit of the present declaration. This declaration is valid for three years from the date of deposit with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe."   2.       On 29 January 1987 the Secretary General of the Council of Europe transmitted the above declaration to the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention and added:           "At the time this declaration was deposited, I drew the Turkish authorities' attention to the fact that this notification made pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Convention in no way prejudges the legal questions which might arise concerning the validity of the said declaration."   3.       In a letter of 5 February 1987 to the Secretary General the Permanent Representative of Turkey observed:           "...         The unequivocal wording of Article 25 (3) of the Convention offers no basis for expressing opinions or adding comments when transmitting the copies of the Turkish declaration to the High Contracting Parties during the discharge of your functions as depositary.           According to Article 25 (3) of the Convention, the Secretary General, with regard to each declaration under Article 25 deposited with him, shall 'transmit copies thereof to the High Contracting Parties and publish them'.           International treaty practice, in particular that followed by the Secretary General of the United Nations as depositary to such similar important treaties as the Statute of the International Court of Justice or the covenants and conventions dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms also confirms that the depositary has to refrain from any comments on the substance of any declaration made by a Contracting Party.         ..."   4.       In his reply of 10 February 1987 the Secretary General stated with regard to his earlier letter of 29 January:           "...         I consider that this course is in keeping with international treaty law and with the relevant practice, as confirmed by numerous precedents, including the practice of the Secretary General of the United Nations as depositary. ...           ... Article 77 (2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ... provides as follows:           'In the event of any difference appearing between a State and the depositary as to the performance of the latter's functions, the depositary shall bring the question to the attention of the signatory States and the Contracting States or, where appropriate, of the competent organ of the international organisation concerned.'           It is consequently my duty to draw the attention of the Contracting Parties to a point on which there is a difference between a Government and myself concerning the performance of my functions as depositary."   5.       The Permanent Representative of Turkey replied on 13 March 1987:           "...         First of all, I would like to state that the Turkish declaration does not contain any 'reservations' in the sense of international treaty law.   ... The term 'reservations' mentioned in your letter, therefore, consists solely of a subjective interpretation and attribution which, in fact, should have been carefully avoided in view of the clearly limited function of the depositary according to Article 25 (3) of the Convention ...           (The) Secretary General of the UN, conforming himself to Resolution 598 (VI) adopted on 12 January 1952 by the General Assembly, has never refused to register notifications or declarations made by contracting parties to a Convention to which he acts as depositary, nor has he made any critical comment about such notifications or declarations when informing the other contracting parties thereof.         ..."   6.       On 6 April 1987 the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece addressed the following letter to the Secretary General:           "...         The Turkish Government, departing from the practice which has up to now been followed by all States in respect of declarations made pursuant to the aforementioned provision, has thought it right to reduce substantially its conventional obligations by formulating a certain number of reservations ... (The) Turkish Government has not expressly used the term reservation in its declaration but ... what is important ... is not the nomenclature or absence of nomenclature of the act in question but its content and effect.   Accordingly, any unilateral declaration which limits a State's contractual obligations is incontestably, from the point of view of international law, a reservation.   This question concerns one of the most established principles of international treaty law, which has been codified by the two Vienna Conventions - the Convention of 1969 on the law of treaties and the Convention of 1986 on the law of treaties between States and international Organisations or between international Organisations.   Both Conventions provide in identical terms that 'the expression 'reservation' means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State' (Article 2, para. 1 (d)).           It is therefore evident that limitations and restrictions contained in the aforementioned declaration of the Turkish Government constitute reservations from the point of view of international law.   Moreover, this results clearly from the expression 'subject to' used in the Turkish declaration.           Accordingly, the question which arises is to know whether the reservations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.   In our opinion, there is no doubt that they are incompatible and in particular for the following reasons:           The issue of reservations is regulated very strictly by Article 64 of the Convention ...           It is self-evident that the Turkish reservations are far from being in agreement with the conditions set out in this article since they are neither compatible with the requirement of time nor with the basic conditions provided therein.           It is moreover incontestable that reservations to the European Convention on Human Rights may not be formulated on the basis of any provision other than Article 64.   This conclusion results not only from Article 64 itself, which is the only provision regulating reservations, but also from the overall structure and nature of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the general principles of international law relating to reservations.   Furthermore, Article 25 provides neither directly nor implicitly the possibility of formulating reservations similar to the reservations set out in the Turkish declaration.   The position cannot be otherwise for if reservations could be made on the basis of Article 25, such a method of proceeding would undermine Article 64 and would sooner or later destroy the very foundations of the Convention.           Article 19, paragraph b, of the Convention on the law of treaties, proclaiming a principle of incontestable legal logic, states that: 'a State may, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless: b) the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made' (see also Article 19 (b) of the Convention on the law of treaties between States and international Organisations or between international Organisations).           It follows that the Turkish reservations, as they are outside the scope of Article 64, must be considered as unauthorised reservations under the Convention and, accordingly, as illegal reservations.   Consequently, they are null and void and may not give rise to any effect in law.           In conclusion, we insist on stressing how regrettable it is in this affair of extreme importance which concerns European public order that you have not up to now fully exercised the depositary functions resulting from general international law and, in particular, from the Vienna Conventions of 1969 and 1986 (see Article 77, paragraph 1 (d), and paragraph 2, respectively), particularly since over and above your depositary role, you are one of the organs which must supervise the strict application of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 57)."   7.       The Secretary General replied as follows in his letter of 27 April 1987:           "Referring to the observations ... relating to the exercise of my functions as depositary under the European Convention on Human Rights, I would like to recall that, at the time of deposit of the declaration by the Turkish authorities, I thought it my duty to stipulate that the notification made pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the Convention in no way prejudged the legal questions which might arise concerning the validity of the said declaration.   Moreover, by letter dated 10 February 1987, I drew the attention of the Contracting Parties, referring to Article 77 (2) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, to the divergence which had arisen between the Government of Turkey and myself concerning the discharge of my aforementioned functions.   In this way, I consider that I have complied with the law and practice of treaties and international organisations resulting in particular from the Vienna Convention of 1969."   8.       The Permanent Representative of Sweden, in his letter of 21 April 1987, replied as follows to the Secretary General's letter of 29 January 1987 transmitting Turkey's declaration under Article 25:           "...         The Swedish Government considers this declaration an important step for the protection of human rights in Turkey. However, the reservations and declarations which Turkey has made in connection with the said recognition raise various legal questions as to the scope of the recognition.   The Government therefore reserves the right to return to this question in the light of such decisions by the competent bodies of the Council of Europe that may occur in connection with concrete petitions from individuals."   9.       The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, in his letter of 21 April 1987, replied as follows to the notification, by the Secretary General, of Turkey's declaration under Article 25:           "...         The reservations, which are set out in that declaration and which limit the recognition by the Turkish Government of the competence of the European Commission of Human Rights to receive individual petitions, raise a fundamental question regarding the scope of legal instruments elaborated within the Council of Europe.   The question is to know inter alia whether the unilateral expression of a limitation of an international Convention's recognition is valid or not.           ... Luxembourg reserves to itself the right to express, when it deems appropriate and before the competent bodies of the Council of Europe, its position in regard to the Turkish Government's declaration.   Between now and then, the absence of a formal and official reaction on the merits of that problem should not ... be interpreted as a tacit recognition by Luxembourg of the Turkish Government's reservations."   10.      The Permanent Representative of Denmark, in his letter of 30 April 1987 to the Secretary General, stated the following with regard to Turkey's declaration:           "...         In the view of the Danish Government, the reservations and declarations which accompany the said recognition raise various legal questions as to the scope of the recognition.   The Government therefore reserves its right to return to these questions in the light of future decisions by the competent bodies of the Council of Europe in connection with concrete petitions from individuals."   11.     The Permanent Representative of Norway, in his letter of 4 May 1987 to the Secretary General, made the following statement:           "...         In the view of the Norwegian Government the step taken by the Turkish Government is to be welcomed as an important contribution to the strengthening of human rights in Europe. However, the wording of the declaration could give rise to difficult issues of interpretation as to the scope of the recognition of the right to petition.   In the event, such issues fall to be resolved by the European Commission of Human Rights in dealing with concrete petitions from individuals.           The right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Human Rights Convention forms an essential part of the system of procedural safeguards for human rights in Europe.   It is therefore desirable to avoid any doubt as to the scope and validity of the recognition by individual States of this right which may be raised by generalised stipulations in respect of the context in which petitions would be accepted as admissible, interpretative statements or other conditionalities."   12.      The Permanent Representative of Turkey, in his letter of 26 June 1987 to the Secretary General, made the following comments with regard to the above letters by Greece, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway:           "First of all, I would like to emphasise that the points contained in