Through this report, the reader will find out the violations of momentous treaties against the Greek minorities that remain at Turkey after first WW. The reader could notice that by 12 years periods we have serious violations against humanity. This report try to uncover the veil of secrecy that covered the first genocide that happen at European land after WWII and never came up to public opinion.
For better understanding reader can examine:
Treaty “de Paix” of Lausanne that’s signed on 24/Jul./1923.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that’s signed at Rome on 4/Nov./1950 and entered into force on 3/Sep./1953. Universal Declaration of Human Right that adopted and proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A(III) on 10/Dec./1948.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260 A (III) on 9/Dec./1948.
Report from Preparatory Commission for the International Crime Court (PCNICC/1991/L.5/).
|1)||In October 1923 Turks restrict the civil and political rights of Greeks living there. Banks, civil services of all kinds and categories as well as big multinational companies and enterprises were forced to dismiss all Greeks from their employ.||(Violation of Article 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|2)||In the same period, the political affiliations of the Greek teachers in Constantinople became||(Violation of Articles 40|
|the object of the investigation conducted by||and 41 of the|
|Salih Zeki, General Director of the Turkish||Treaty of|
|Ministry of Education. On this occasion of 104||Lausanne –|
|teachers of Greek descent and 52 Greek||The League of|
|teachers were dismissed, characterized as ‘unfit’||Nations has|
|to teach in minority schools.||guaranteed the|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|3)||In 1923 Turkey, aiming to restrict the Greek presence in Constantinople, arbitrarily||(Violation of Article 2 of the|
|characterized 40,000 Greeks, as personae non||Treaty on the|
|gratae who had found temporary refuge for||exchange of|
|reasons of safety outside Turkey, prior to the||populations,|
|signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, removed||which was|
|their Turkish citizenship and proceeded to the||incorporated|
|mass confiscation of their properties. The||in the Treaty|
|occasion, as declared by Ankara, was that these||of Lausanne).|
|people, have left the country with travel|
|documents that were not accepted by the|
|authorities of the Turkish Republic (i.e. have|
|used passport issued by the Ottoman authorities|
|and not by the Turkish Republic). In reality,|
|when these people left in September and|
|October 1922, the only authority in|
|Constantinople issuing passport was the|
|4)||Between 1923 and 1929 Turkey, aiming to restrict the Greek presence in Constantinople,||(Violation of Article 2 of the|
|required that all Greeks settled in Turkey before||Treaty on the|
|1918, and thus not exchangeable under the||exchange of|
|terms of the Treaty on the exchange of||populations,|
|populations. The Greek view was justified, on||which was|
|21/Feb./1925, by the International Court of||incorporated|
|Justice. Nevertheless, Turkey continued their||in the Treaty|
|5)||Turkey, in the framework of its strategic undermining and degradation of the Ecumenical||(Violation of Articles 38, 40|
|seat of the Orthodox faith, gave its full support||and 42 of the|
|in September 1923 to the establishment of the||Treaty of|
|so-called ‘Turkish Orthodox Church’, which was||Lausanne –|
|founded by father Efthym Karahisarides||The League of|
|Erenerol, a priest from Keskin, Anatolia, who||Nations has|
|was the blind instrument of Mustafa Kemal||guaranteed the|
|Ataturk. In October 1923, father Efthym, by||implementation|
|now renamed himself Pope Efthym, attempted||of said|
|to occupy the Patriarchal Compound, causing||Articles,|
|grave incidents, while the Turkish authorities||as set forth in|
|did not lift an eyelid.||Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|6)||By virtue of Decree No 1092/06.12.1923, Turkey downgraded the Ecumenical||(Violation of Articles 40, 42|
|Patriarchate of Constantinople to a local NGO||and 43 of the|
|with no legal personality and determined that||Treaty of|
|the Patriarch would be elected by clergymen||Lausanne –|
|who were Turkish nationals and were already||The League of|
|serving in Turkey. The fact that Turkey was||Nations has|
|unable to unilaterally evict the Ecumenical||guaranteed the|
|Patriarchate from Constantinople, which is what||implementation|
|it would have done for any institution governed||of said|
|by the domestic Turkish law, and was forced by||Articles,|
|the parties signing the Treaty of Lausanne to||as set forth in|
|accept that the Ecumenical Patriarchate would||Article 44 of|
|remain in Constantinople, indicates the extent||the Treaty of|
|arbitrariness of the Turkish Republic.||Lausanne).|
|7)||Immediately after the installation of the Turkish authorities in Imvros and Tenedos, on||(Violation of Article 14 of|
|4/Oct./1923, where more than 90% of||the Treaty of|
|population was Greek, the Republic of Turkey||Lausanne and|
|completely ignored the special local||Protocol XV|
|administration and the autonomy which the two||Article 5 on|
|islands, which were offered to Turkey as a gift||amnesty,|
|with the initiative of Great Britain in the||violation of|
|framework of the Treaty of Lausanne, should||Articles 38|
|have enjoyed. Government of Ankara appointed||and 39 of the|
|right away a Turkish commander and Turkish||Treaty of|
|officers to the courts, customs houses, police||Lausanne –|
|and port authorities, dismissing all the elected||The League of|
|local officials. They cut off the Christian||Nations has|
|leadership characterizing as personae non gratae||guaranteed the|
|1,500 people from Imvros and 64 from||implementation|
|Tenedos, who had found temporary refuge in||of said|
|safer places. Their real property was seized.||Articles,|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|8)||On 12/Feb./1924 father Efthym burst into the historic church of Panaghia Kafatiani in Galatas||(Violation of Articles 37, 39,|
|(Karaköy) and the church of Sotiras Christos||40, 41 and 42|
|and took possession of them, with the||of the Treaty|
|undisguised support of the Turkish authorities.||of Lausanne –|
|On 19/Feb./1924 the Patriarchal Holy Synod||The League of|
|stripped father Efthym of his clerical attire,||Nations has|
|while he had already been excommunicated as||guaranteed the|
|an apostate and shameless traitor of the||implementation|
|orthodox faith. The Turkish courts rushed with||of said|
|unprecedented eagerness to fine the Ecumenical||Articles,|
|Patriarch in April 1924 for the mental anguish||as set forth in|
|suffered by father Efthym as a result of his||Article 44 of|
|excommunication, while the Turkish State||the Treaty of|
|officially conceded to him the churches he had||Lausanne).|
|occupied with the violent ‘backing’ of the|
|9)||On 30/Jan./1925, upon the conclusion of the mass for the celebration of the holiday of the||(Violation of Articles 37, 38,|
|three Hierarchs, the Turkish police invaded the||40, 42 of the|
|premises of the Patriarchate, arrested||Treaty of|
|Ecumenical Patriarch Constantinos VI and after||Lausanne –|
|giving him an exchange passport led him to the||The League of|
|railway station of Sirkeci and deported him||Nations has|
|from Turkey.||guaranteed the|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|10)||In the same year, the Turkish Government decided to shut down the historic Greek||(Violation of Articles 37, 38,|
|Literary Club and the contents of its invaluable||39, 40, 41 and|
|library were scattered among the state libraries||42 of the|
|in Ankara and Suleymaniye and the various||Treaty of|
|Turkish language and Turkish history societies.||Lausanne –|
|The books are still there.||The League of|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|11)||The Turkish Government, in order to prevent Greek teachers from teaching in Turkey,||(Violation of Articles 37, 38,|
|required them to pass examinations in the||39, 40, 41 and|
|Turkish language for the approval of a new||42 of the|
|teaching license. Most courses in the Greek||Treaty of|
|schools had to be taught in the Turkish||Lausanne –|
|language. Ethnic Greeks in Constantinople were||The League of|
|forced to bear the burden of the double salaries||Nations has|
|paid to the Turkish teachers teaching in Greek||guaranteed the|
|schools, while at the same time they were asked||implementation|
|to pay a special education tax, invented for the||of said|
|purpose of draining them. The Zappeion School||Articles,|
|for Girls had to shut down because there were||as set forth in|
|statues inspired from the Greek mythology in its||Article 44 of|
|premises. The Patriarchal Commercial School,||the Treaty of|
|the Greek Commercial School in Halki and the||Lausanne).|
|Apostolides private school for languages had to|
|shut down and their property has been|
|confiscated by the State.|
|12)||On 14/Jun./1926 the Turkish Government, in the framework of its strategy of undermining||(Violation of Articles 38|
|and lowering the status of the Ecumenical||and 40 of the|
|Patriatchate, initiated criminal proceedings||Treaty of|
|against the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the||Lausanne)|
|Holy Synod, on the grounds that they had|
|convened a meeting at the Halki Seminary and|
|not in Phanare (Fener), the administrative seat|
|of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.|
|In the same period, the Turkish Government did|
|not allow the organization of a Panorthodox|
|Convention by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.|
|13)||The introduction of the Civil Code in Turkey, in October 1926, established for minority||(Violation of Articles 37, 38,|
|institutions an inability to acquire new real||39 and 40 of|
|estate, either by property transaction or by||the Treaty of|
|donation or inheritance, while the Patriarchate’s||Lausanne –|
|capacity as a legal entity was not officially||The League of|
|recognized, thus causing huge impediments to||Nations has|
|the management and representation of the huge||guaranteed the|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|14)||Law 1151, passed by the Turkish National Assembly on 25/Jun./1927, substantially and||(Violation of Articles 14, 27,|
|officially abolished the self administration||38 and 40 of|
|status of the islands Imvros and Tenedos, shut||the Treaty of|
|down on various pretexts the Greek School,||Lausanne –|
|prohibited the instruction of the Greek language||The League of|
|and placed Christians under persecution, to their||Nations has|
|final extinction.||guaranteed the|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|15)||During the year 1930 the Turkish authorities openly intervened in the elections of the administration boards of the minority hospital in Valoukli and the community of Pera (Beyoglou), aiming at the big properties of the minority members.||(Violation of Article 40 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|16)||Law 2007, passed by the Turkish National Assembly on 11/Jun./1932, banned Greek||(Violation of Article 2,|
|nationals exempted from the exchange of||Convention IV,|
|populations and legally residing in||part (a) and|
|Constantinople from the exercise of thirty||Articles 37|
|professions. These professions covered a wide||and 40|
|spectrum, indicative of the intentions to||of the Treaty|
|indirectly force Greeks to emigrate voluntarily:||of Lausanne).|
|The professions of itinerant salesman, barber,|
|musician, photographer, carpenter, tailor and|
|waiter were among the first to be prohibited for|
|Greeks by the Turkish authorities. The banning|
|of other professions as well followed later,|
|compelling Greeks to make a painful choice:|
|either remain unemployed, work illegally or|
|emigrate from their land.|
|17)||Law 2596, passed by the Turkish National Assembly on 3/Dec./1934, prohibited all||(Violation of Articles 37, 38,|
|Christian clergymen to don cassocks outside the||40 and 43 of|
|church. The only exception allowed by the Law||the Treaty of|
|manifests the Turkish intention to bring the||Lausanne –|
|Ecumenical Patriarch down to the level of the||The League of|
|“puppet-priest” (father) Efthym Karahisarides||Nations has|
|Erenerol, since it set forth that only the||guaranteed the|
|Patriarch and father Efthym, under his capacity||implementation|
|as self-declared head and leader of the Turkish||of said|
|Orthodox Church, were allowed to wear||Articles,|
|cassocks outside the church.||as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|18)||In the same year, Law 2525, under which all Turkish nationals were obligated take on a||(Violation of Articles 37, 38|
|surname, forced Greeks to Turkify their last||and 39 of the|
|names, because those last names with Greek||Treaty of|
|roots were not accepted by the Turkish||Lausanne –|
|authorities. At the same time, a racist campaign||The League of|
|was launched under the slogan ‘Citizens speak||Nations has|
|Turkish’, with the result that anyone daring to||guaranteed the|
|speak his mother tongue in the streets was||implementation|
|abused and fined.||of said|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|19)||Law 2762 on Vakuf, (property dedicated to charitable institutions), passed by the Turkish||(Violation of Articles 40|
|National Assembly on 5/Jun./1935, placed||and 42 of the|
|minority communities under the control and||Treaty of|
|supervision of the General Directorate of||Lausanne –|
|Charitable Foundations (Vakıflar Genel||The League of|
|Müdürlüğü) and required them to submit||Nations has|
|statements as to their income and their||guaranteed the|
|properties. The management of minority||implementation|
|institutions and schools was assigned to a||of said|
|commissioner, appointed by the Turkish||Articles,|
|authorities.||as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|20)||On 26/July/1934, a new decree in implementation of the Law 2007/1932, banned||(Violation of Article 2,|
|the Christian population who held the Greek||Convention IV,|
|nationality from the exercise of more||part (a), and|
|professions, which resulted to the mass exodus||Articles 37|
|of no less than 10,000 Christians with Greek||and 40|
|nationality from Turkey.||of the Treaty|
|21)||In the two years 1936-1937, Greek minority schools became the Turkish Government’s||(Violation of Articles 39, 40|
|target. All the courses had to be taught in||and 41 of the|
|Turkish, with the exception of the course of||Treaty of|
|Modern Greek Language. The military||Lausanne –|
|education course was added, taught by an||The League of|
|officer of the Turkish army. A Turkish deputy-||Nations has|
|principal was appointed to each minority||guaranteed the|
|school, answerable to the Turkish Ministry of||implementation|
|Education, who gradually became the sole and||of said|
|dominant power in minority schools.||Articles,|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|22)||During the same period, pursuant to Law 2762/1925, the Turkish authorities appointed||(Violation of Article 40 of|
|the infamous lawyer Istamat Zihni Özdamar,||the Treaty of|
|who was father Efthym’s right arm, as||Lausanne –|
|commissioner to the Valoukli Charitable||The League of|
|Foundation, causing an uproar in the Greek||Nations has|
|Articles, as set|
|forth in Article|
|44 of the|
|23)||In 1939 all minority sports clubs were required to merge with Turkish sports clubs, so that they||(Violation of Articles 40|
|progressively shrank and lost their Greek||and 42 of the|
|The League of|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|24)||During WWII Republic of Turkey, found a wonderful opportunity, from the safety of its||(Violation of Articles 37, 38|
|neutrality, to strike heavy blows on the ethnic||and 39 of the|
|Greeks of Turkey, taking advantage of the||Treaty of|
|weakness of Greece, which was struggling for||Lausanne –|
|the ideals of freedom and justice, at the side of||The League of|
|the Allied forces. Thus in May 1941 the||Nations has|
|Turkish Government mobilized the prefectures||guaranteed the|
|in Eastern Thrace, starting from the prefecture||implementation|
|of Constantinople. The enlistment offices were||of said|
|ordered, by way of a ciphered footnote under||Articles,|
|the mobilization decision, to summon||as set forth in|
|selectively the reservists from the Greek,||Article 44 of|
|Armenian and Jewish minorities. This way, all||the Treaty of|
|Christians aged 20 to 45 were dragged to the||Lausanne).|
|army and were scattered in the depths of Asia|
|Minor to construct roads and military buildings|
|under the most adverse circumstances.|
|25)||On 21/Sep./1941 ‘unknown’ arsonists threw on the wooden roof of the Ecumenical Patriarchate||(Violation of Articles 38|
|rags which they had immersed in gasoline and||and 42 of the|
|put on fire. The Patriarchal Building burnt to||Treaty of|
|ashes, taking with it records, paintings of||Lausanne –|
|Patriarchs and valuable relics of the Greek||The League of|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|26)||On 11/Nov./1942, the Turkish Government with its Law 4305, using religion and ethnicity as||(Violation of Articles 37, 38|
|criteria imposed an enormous emergency||and 39 of the|
|property tax, which aimed at the financial||Treaty of|
|extinction of Christians in Turkey. The Law,||Lausanne –|
|which came to be known as Varlık Vergisi,||The League of|
|(Asset Tax) required the payment within 15||Nations has|
|days of an arbitrarily imposed taxed by the tax||guaranteed the|
|inspector, and without the right to appeal. Four||implementation|
|weeks after the imposition of the tax, failure to||of said|
|pay resulted to the confiscation of the taxpayer’s||Articles,|
|property, his arrest and displacement to forced||as set forth in|
|labor-camps in Aşkale, at extremely bad||Article 44 of|
|weather conditions. In total, 1,869 illustrious||the Treaty of|
|members of the minority population saw their||Lausanne).|
|properties suddenly confiscated and themselves|
|exiled to the Aşkale, where they built roads in|
|order to settle their debt to the Turkish State.|
|Their daily wages were 2 Turkish Liras, out of|
|which one was deducted for the rudimentary|
|meals they were given and the other one|
|deducted with regard to their debt to the|
|Turkish State. Most of them, in order to settle|
|the debt arbitrarily imposed on them, would|
|have to work from 200 to 300 years!|
|At the end of 1943 (When WWII considered)|
|the victims were emancipated, but 21 Greeks|
|died out in Aşkale.|
|27)||In January 1943 the Turkish Government confiscated the properties of the Holy Orthodox||(Violation of Articles 14, 37,|
|Monasteries of Mount Athos Megisti Lavra and||38 and 39 of|
|Koutloumousi on the island Imvros and started||the Treaty of|
|to relocate settlers from Asia Minor to the||Lausanne –|
|island. The Mayor and three Community||The League of|
|chairpersons that dared to protest were banished||Nations has|
|in Asia Minor. The same destiny awaited two of||guaranteed the|
|the most important members of the Holy Synod:||implementation|
|Metropolite Maximos of Chalcedon, who later||of said|
|became Ecumenical Patriarch, and Metropolite||Articles,|
|Dorotheos of Prussa.||as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On 31 July 1950, Republic of Turkey was signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide without any declarations and reservations.
On 4 November 1950, Republic of Turkey was signed the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms like being member of the Council of Europe. Conventions entered in force at Turkey on 3 September 1953.
|28)||On 6/Sep./1955 the Turkish Government, in a cold-blooded and preplanned manner, launched an organized riots against Christians in Constantinople (or stage of Extermination of Genocide as analyzed by Gregory H. Stanton). Within the space of six hours: 72 holy places from 95,36 Greek schools from 48,3 Greek newspapers form 3,4228 shops, companies, factories belonging to Greeks,2640 houses belonging to Christians were destroyed, looted or set on fire.||(Violation of Articles 38, 39, 40 and 43 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|The tombs of the Patriarchs were destroyed and the Greek cemetery in Şişli was the target of a frenzied attack by the organized mob. The criminals were possessed with a cannibal-like mania and they ruined tombs, opened the more recent ones, and unburied corpses, which they knifed and tore to pieces. During this night of terror for the Greeks of Constantinople, 37 deaths, 30 of injuries and 300 rapes took place, while icons and religious paintings of priceless historic and archeological value were destroyed or stolen. The damages caused by this unheard of “riots” against the 150,000 Greeks of Constantinople was estimated by the Turkish government itself to be at ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS (1950’s valuation). No one of criminals was arrested. The denial of||(Violation of Articles 2, 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide). (Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|the state involvement in the event took a place till to 2005. (See appendix A)|
|29)||On 16/Sep./1955 the Turkish authorities interdicted the publication of the minority newspaper ‘Eleftheri Phoni’ and arrested its publisher Andreas Lambikis, whom they imprisoned without a warrant or official charges for a period of three months in the military jail of Harbiye.||(Violation of Articles 37 and 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|30)||In November 1956, the Turkish authorities arrested twelve members of the Greek||(Violation of Articles 38, 39,|
|Association of Constantinople, which they||40 and 42 of|
|dissolved by court decision in April 1958,||the Treaty of|
|allegedly for espionage for Greece and for||Lausanne –|
|financing the struggle of the organization||The League of|
|EOKA in Cyprus.||Nations has|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|of the Treaty). (Violation of Articles 3, 5 and 7 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|31)||From early 1957 to 1959 the Turkish authorities deported 57 personalities of the Greek Orthodox minority in Constantinople, including reporter Dimitrios Kaloumenos, who had captured with his camera the vandalism’s of 6/Sep./1955.||(Violation of Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 3, 5 and 10 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|32)||During the same period, the Turkish authorities with a campaign levered mainly by students-||(Violation of Articles 38|
|members of Anti-Greek organizations and||and 39 of the|
|societies used psychological pressure on||Treaty of|
|consumers, forcing them not to buy products||Lausanne –|
|from shops owned by Greeks. To that end, they||The League of|
|distributed propagandist leaflets in front of the||Nations has|
|Christian shops, with the slogan ‘Bu dükkan||guaranteed the|
|gavurların malıdır. Yanındakine girin,||implementation|
|çünkü Türkün’dür (This shop belongs to an||of said|
|infidel. Prefer the shop next door, it belongs to a||Articles,|
|Turk). This campaign, combined with the other one asking people to speak only Turkish – the relevant slogan ‘Vatandaş Türkçe konuş’ was everywhere – maintained the unbearable feeling of terror, which surrounded the Christians of Constantinople.||as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 5,8, 9 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|33)||The Turkish authorities announced new restriction measures about the exercise of various professions by Greeks in Constantinople in 1960, in implementation of Law 2007/1932.||(Violation of Article 2, Convention IV, part (a) and Articles 37 and 40 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 3, 5, 8, 9 14 and 16 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|34)||That same year, the Turkish authorities abolished the three central Greek Orthodox boards of Stavrodromion (Pera, Beyoğlu), Halkidona (Kadıköy) and Galatas (Karaköy), which coordinated the ethnic Greek institutions. That way, the real estate belonging to the institutions was led. However, thought to terrorized the Greek Ortxodox, at the Turkish State.||(Violation of Article 40 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|35)||Law 222 of 1961 arbitrarily brought minority schools under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Ministry of Education, for the purpose of circumventing the obligations undertaken by Turkey under the Treaty of Lausanne.||(Violation of Articles 37, 39, 40 and 41 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 7, 8, 10 14 and 16 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|36)||In 1962 an application for the reconstruction of the Patriarchal Palace, after the damages it had suffered from the fire of 1941, was rejected. Similar applications for the maintenance of other buildings belonging to the minority, such as the Pringipos Orphanage (Büyük Ada), the Metropolis at Derkon and the Tatavla (Kurtuluş) School were also rejected. In the same year the plot of the church of Agios Georgios (Saint George) in Therapia (Tarabya) was arbitrarily occupied for the purposes of developing a big tourist complex, without any attention paid to the protests of the Christians.||(Violation of Articles 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|37)||In 1963 the church of Sotiras Christos, which in 1924 had been forcefully occupied by father Efthym, was torn down by the Turkish authorities. This church, 12 years after it had been occupied by coup by the father Efthym, had been returned to the Christians after a long struggle in the courts. In 1955 it had been completely destroyed by the organized criminals- unlike the church of Panagia Kafatiani, which had remained under the control of the father Efthym and which was left untouched during the night of the events. After it was torn down, the Turkish authorities awarded damages to father Efthym!||(Violation of Articles 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|38)||In 1964 the Turkish authorities implemented a coordinated wave of persecutions, aiming at the complete extinction of the Christian minority of Constantinople: The year began with the authorities setting the proper climate, with the stoning of the Patriarchate. This was followed, on 10/Jan./1964, by the stoning of the Sinaitic Monastery of Agios Ioannis in Phanare (Fener). Then the wave of persecutions assumed torrential dimensions. Three principals of Greek High Schools and eleven Greek teachers dismissed. Orthodox clergymen were forbidden entry in Greek schools by virtue of Circular No 410/16/26.03.1964. On 1/Apr./1964 Emilianos, Metropolite of Seleukia and Iakovos, Metropolite of Philadelphia, were deported from Turkey and were deprived of the Turkish nationality. Nine days later, on 10/Apr./1964, the Patriarchal printing office, which had been in operation since 1927, was shut down and the publication of the ecclesiastical publications ‘Apostolos Andreas’ and ‘Orthodoxy’ was forbidden. The handling of Greek books, whatever their form, in minority schools, the teaching of the religious education course and the celebration of the religious holidays of Easter, Christmas and New Year’s Day were forbidden by virtue||(Violation of Articles 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation all Articles 2 to 16 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|of Circular No 3385, issued on 15/Sep./1964. On 20/Sep./1964, the community cemetery of Kouskoutzouki (Kuzguncuk) was desecrated and on the following day, on September 21, 1964, the church of Panaghia in Exi Marmara was stoned. Between October 4 and 9 the Patriarchate was blockaded by a mass of organized ‘demonstrators’. Morning prayers were forbidden for Greek students in minority schools by virtue of Circular No 8459, issued on December 18, 1964. Students were also forbidden to use the Greek language. At the same time, the historic Greek Orphanage in Pringipos (Büyük Ada) was shut down at one night, when the building was forcefully occupied by the Turkish authorities.|
|39)||On 16/Mar./1964 Turkish Preminister İnönü transgress the Treaty of 1930 (signed between Greece – Turkey) and from March 1964 the Turkish Government began the mass expulsion of Greeks from Constantinople in the most provocative, flagrant and blatant violation of the Treaty of Lausanne, given that there was absolutely no question that Greek nationals settled in Constantinople prior to 1918 were not exchangeable. The summary mass persecution of the Greeks was the last blow to the wounded and bled Hellenism of Constantinople. The expulsion was suddenly announced in the press, accompanied by the simultaneous seizure of the moveable property and confiscation of the real property of the deportees, forcing them to leave the country with only what they could fit inside the suitcase they carried and no more 200 Turkish Liras per person (about 40$). The Turkish authorities were so eager to uproot the ethnic Greeks of Constantinople, that in the lists they published with the names of the Greeks to be deported, allegedly on the||(Violation all of Articles between 2-16 of European Convention on Human Rights) (Violation of Article 2 par. C of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).|
|grounds of being dangerous to the safety of Turkey, they included the names of people with mental or physical disabilities, hundreds of elderly persons who could only move around with difficulty as well as at least six dead people! (Violation of Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|40)||On 2/11/1964, the Turkish Government by virtue of its secret decree which acquired the reference num. 6/3801, proceeded to the methodical looting of the huge Christian properties, make illegal the transfer of property titles to persons of Greek nationality and blocking the collection of all amounts due, all proceeds, incomes and bank accounts. This unprecedented plundering was kept secret and implemented faithfully for decades, until it was uncovered twenty-four years later. By the same law on article 5 the local state agents has the right to expropriate any assets without to pay. Using these rights in the island Imvros, 98% of arable land was expropriate (in 1960 25.000.000 m2 expropriate lands belongs to Greeks. In 1990 it decreased to 600 m2 ). Fishing, which was an important means of livelihood for the residents, was prohibited. By the same secret legislative (6/3801 depend on law 1062 par.1) forebade Greek citizens to purchase any assets in Turkey. There was same kind of articles at new secret legislative on 1995 (B.03.0.UIG.0.00.00.7-1995- YUNANİSTAN).||(Violation of Articles 37, 38, 49 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|41)||In 1964 the Metropolitan and elders of Imvros were exiled to Asia Minor. Gendarmerie camps||(Violations of Articles 14, 38,|
|were established and settlers were transferred from Pontus and Bulgaria. The area was declared ‘supervised zone’ and all Greek and foreign visitors had to secure a special permit from the Dardanelles'(Çanakkale) Prefect. Some time later, open prisons for long-term convicts were relocated to the island, in order to terrify the residents, whose only way out was that, which the Turkish authorities systematically implemented: to leave their ancestral hearths. In same year all the school buildings and assets of schools on Imvros Island were confiscated. All teachers dismissed by the state and forbidden them to teach in any other Greek School at Turkey.||39, 40 and 41 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|42)||In September 1965, father Efthym occupied by force, with the undisguised support of the Turkish authorities, the holy churches of Agios Ioannis in Hion and Agios Nikolaos in Galata (Karaköy). The Turkish authorities rushed to offer him the Greek institutions in the area, including 2 schools and 52 properties. Since then, all the legal efforts for the return of the churches and institutions have been met with legalistic problems, which have resulted to the continuous adjournment of the relevant proceedings!||(Violation of Articles 38, 40, 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|43)||In 1965 Andreas Lambikis, publisher of ‘Eleftheri Phoni’, the minority newspaper, arrested and imprisoned. The newspaper, printing presses and the premises owned by him were seized, and the publisher was ousted from Turkey with the charge of ‘insulting Turkism’.||(Violation of Articles 38, 39 and 40 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|44)||The persecutions in minority schools continued, despite the rapid decline in the number of students. In 1967 another 39 teachers were dismissed and 6 Greek elementary schools were shut down. Children whose identity bore the indication ‘Christian’ instead of ‘Rum’ were not allowed entry in minority schools, and were forced to attend Turkish elementary schools.||(Violation of Articles 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|(Violation of Article 2 par. E of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide)|
|45)||Law 903/1967 imposed a 5% tax on the annual gross Vakıf income. The acquisition of any||(Violation of Articles 37, 40|
|real property in excess of that stated in 1936||and 42 of the|
|was prohibited. The establishment of new||Treaty of|
|minority institutions was prohibited.||Lausanne –|
|The League of|
|of said Articles,|
|as set forth in|
|Article 44 of|
|the Treaty of|
|46)||In this period on Imvros Island 262 holy places was desecrate and 248 of them was sacked. The sixteenth century historical church from town of Kastro was set on fire.||(Violation of Articles 38, 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|47)||On 9/July/1971 the Turkish Government, in an effort to strangle the nursery of Orthodox clergymen, discontinued the operation of the Seminary of Halki. In the 127 years from its foundation, 930 clergymen had graduated from the Seminary, including 12 Ecumenical Patriarchs, 2 Patriarchs of Antiochy (Antakya) , 4 Archbishops of Athens and 1 Archbishop of Tirana. At the same time, all Greek minority schools were required to open courses with the Turkish oath ending with the phrase ‘Ne mutlu Türküm diyene’, which means ‘How happy I am a Turk!”||(Violation of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights). (Violation of Articles 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|48)||In September 1974 the Turkish authorities turned to mosques the Byzantine monastery of Akatalyptos Maria Diakonissa, which was built in 582, the monastery of Myreleo and the church of Agia Theodora.||(Violation of Articles 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|49)||In the islands of Imvros and Tenedos, the heroic Christian residents who had lived||(Violation of Articles 14, 37,|
|through persecutions and terrorism, now had||38, 39, 40 and 42|
|to suffer more tribulations. The year after||of the Treaty of|
|Stelios Kavalieros was murdered by ‘unknown’ parties in Panaghia, Imvros in 1973, the Mayor of Imvros, together with 20 eminent islanders, were put in prison in the Dardanelles (Çanakkale). On the night of the Turkish invasion in Cyprus, in July 1974, the old Metropolitan Church of Imvros was looted and the cemetery of the village Castro on the island was desecrated. In the following summer Styliani Zouni, mother of two, was raped and murdered by a Turkish soldier in the village of Agii Theodori, Imvros. Finally, in the two-year period 1975-1976 more lands, from what little had remained in the hands of the Christian residents, were expropriated for next to nothing, as usual.||Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|(Violation of Article 2 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).|
|50)||The Turkish authorities, with Law 502/1978 managed to shrink the community property of||(Violation of Article 40 of the|
|the Valoukli Hospital to what it was in 1936,||Treaty of|
|annulling all transfers of moveable and real||Lausanne).|
|properties which had taken place by virtue of|
|donations, bequests etc.|
|51)||The 1980s were the coup de grace for the Christians of Imvros and Tenedos, in the form of new ‘unsolved’ murders. In July 1980 George Viglis was massacred in Schinoudi, supposedly by ‘unknown’ parties. In 1984 Efstratios Stylianidis was murdered in Schinoudi and Nikos Ladas in PanHaghia. A few years later Zaphiris Deliconstantis was murdered in the village of Glyky. In 1984 the Turkish Government, bringing to a conclusion the infamous ‘eritme program?’ (melting program), meaning the plan for the complete Turkification of the Greek islands of Imvros and Tenedos, proceeded to seize the last remaining 956 thousand square meters, prohibiting cattle breeding and characterizing all remaining pastures as forestland or lands to be reforested and national parks.||(Violation of Articles 14, 37, 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|(Violation of Article 2 of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).|
|52)||On February, 1984 the Greek cemetery in Therapia (Tarabya) was the target of a frenzied attack by the organized mob. Same cemetery has second attack on 19/May/1986.||(Violation of Articles 38, 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|53)||On 29/May/1985, on a symbolic date, the Turkish authorities proceeded to an also||(Violation of Articles 40 and|
|symbolic act: They tore down the whole front of the holy church of Agios Georgios in Makrochori (Bakırköy).||42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|54)||On July 1985 the government of Özal gave some rights to the Greeks who were deported of 1964. They were given the right of claim for lost properties. At same time with 8-118- 27433 the government ordered all the minions of law to “pay attention to their decision”. This was the starting date for new Turkish foreign policy with two facets; one for the foreign countries to proof “the democratic face of Turkey”, the other for local minions to “to maintain all policies against minorities”.|
|55)||The current decade is characterized by the increased intensity of the Turkish||(Violation of Article 40 of the|
|provocations, against the remnants of the||Treaty of|
|Greek properties in the unforgettable||Lausanne).|
|fatherlands of Asia Minor, which are the|
|fixed target of the Young Turks, but also|
|against the great Greek presence and the huge|
|Christian estates. After a period of 20 years|
|since the last elections permitted in the Greek|
|communities of Constantinople, in March|
|1991 elections were held. However, the|
|procedure permitted was only a parody, since the members of the appointed returning committee were also the only candidates! A Greek woman, who dared to protest, was found abused in her home, after having received the ‘visit’ of unknown parties who had tried to ‘bring her to her senses’.|
|56)||In the same year, the Turkish authorities took arbitrary occupation of the building of the Greek community of Tzivali (Cibali) and the Community building of Agios Phocas in Mesochori (Ortaköy), Bosphorus. In both cases, the Turkish State paid the expenses for the restoration of the occupied buildings.||(Violation of Articles 40 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|57)||On 25/Aug./1991, perfectly organized demonstrators, with not only the tolerance but also the open support of the Turkish authorities, besieged, under the sounds of epic songs of the janissaries, the premises of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which they blocked off for four days and nights in a row. When they had the pleasure to leave, they kept trumpeting forth their intention to return and install a Turkish patriarch in the premises of the Patriarchate!||(Violations of Articles 38, 40, 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|58)||In April 1992, four churches and one holy water spring were the targets of attacks: The church of Evangelistria, at the foot of Tatavla (Kurtuluş), the church of Agios Georgios in Edirnekapı, the church of Agios Ignatios in Halkidona (Kadıköy) and the holy water spring of Prophitis Ilias in Mega Revma (Arnavutköy). In all these cases, the culprits removed undisturbed icons and religious vessels of great historic and archaeological value, without getting arrested of course.||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|59)||In August 1993, ‘unknown’ parties entered the Christian cemetery of Neochori (Yeniköy), and opened and looted 30 tombs. At that time, the church in the cemetery of Prophitis Ilias was broken into and robbed, while at the holy water spring of Parthenos Maria in Göksu, bold culprits opened a great hole on the wall of the building, destroyed the premises and the holy water’s taps.||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|60)||On 12/Jun./1993, ‘unknown’ parties as usual, catapulted an improvised Molotov bomb onto the building of the newly built, with great trouble and expenses, Patriarchal House in Phanare (Fener). The fire was extinguished by the clergymen, because the Fire Department was unable to intervene!||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|61)||In early August 1993, one more incident shocked the Christian minority of Constantinople. A twelve-year old girl, Petroula Syrigou, was dragged by force inside a black Mercedes by three ‘unknown’ parties, in front of the eyes of a large number of witnesses. The poor girl was found a little while later naked and molested in a state of aphasia, which lasted three whole days. On the third day, Petroula Syrigou died and was buried in the Christian cemetery of Neochori (Yeniköy). A few days later, on 24/Aug./1993, vandals broke into the same cemetery and after breaking the tomb marbles, scattered the bones of the dead and unburied a corpse from its shroud in order to tear it apart!||(Violation of Articles 38 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|62)||On 28/Sep./1993 eight ‘unknown’ persons entered the premises of the Ioakimion School for Girls in Fener, used a tank of gas and started a fire and then disappeared. The fire was extinguished by the local residents, because the Fire Department did not deem it necessary to make an appearance. The following month, in October 1993, a big rock was thrown inside the premises of the Patriarchate from the neighbouring hill, a regular army bomb was placed in the church of Panagia ton Ouranon, in an old quarter of Constantinople , which fortunately did not explode, while the fire started by ‘unknown’ parties at the Monastery of Agios Georgios in Principos (Büyük Ada) ruined a significant part of the building. In November 1993 ‘unknown’ parties threw two bombs inside the precinct of the church of Panagia in Eğrikapı and disappeared.|
|63)||On 30/Mar./1994, three improvised incendiary Molotov bombs were catapulted from the northern wall of the Patriarchal House in Fener and twelve days later, on 12/Apr./1994 Molotov bombs were thrown inside the yard of the Greek Grand National School in Fener. On the night of 30/Apr./1994 ‘unknown’ parties broke into the church of Metamorphosis in the Şişli cemetery, stole 7 icons of great value, four gold candle-stands and ruined various religious vessels. Immediately after that, they broke into the neighbouring chapel of the Apostles Petros and Pavlos, and desecrated the grounds. On the night of 1/Aug./1994 ‘unknown’ parties entered into the chapel of Agios Ioannis Prodromos in the cemetery of Makrochori (Bakırköy), stealing innumerable icons and desecrating the grounds. In September 1994 the Turkish authorities, in a characteristic insult to the religious sentiment of Christians, make available the old||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights).|
|Byzantine church of Haghia Irini for the conduct of an international conference.|
|64)||In April 1995 the house of BBC correspondent Alkis Kourkoulas was broken into and valuable documents were stolen. In June of the same year ‘unknown’ parties broke into the church of Aghios Ignatios in Halkidona (Kadıköy), stealing icons and five silver candle-holders and into the Holy Water Spring of Parthenos Maria in Göksu, ruining furniture. On 4/Oct./1994 ‘unknown’ parties murdered and robbed the elderly Christina Frangopoulou in Pringipos (Büyükada).||(Violation of Articles 38 and 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne – The League of Nations has guaranteed the implementation of said Articles, as set forth in Article 44 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|65)||On 3/Mar./1996 the church of Panagia ton Ouranon became again the target of ‘unknown’ perpetrators. A powerful remote- controlled explosive device was discovered by the church attendant and disposed of at the last minute by the Turkish police. On 16/Sep./1996 two bombs went off almost simultaneously, one in the Byzantine church of Panagia in Mouchli (Fener) and the other in the now shut down building of the Ioakeimion School for Girls in Fener. Thirteen days later, on 29/Sep./1996 a grenade was catapulted onto the roof of the Patriarchal Church of Haghios Georgios, causing damages to the building.|
|66)||The bomb attacks in Fener went on under the impassive indifference of the Turkish Government. Thus, on 2/Dec./1997 a fresh bomb attack at the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate resulted to the serious injury of deacon Nectarios from Rethymnon, Crete and to extensive damages in the Holy Church of Agios Georgios. On 13/Jan./1998 the ‘unknown’ parties entered at two o’clock in the afternoon into the holy water spring of Agios Therapon near Agia Sofia, murdered the 73- year old keeper Haviaropoulos, threw his corpse into a well, grabbed valuable icons and set the place on fire in order to cover their tracks!||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne). (Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|67)||On the night of 30-31/Mar./1998 vandals entered the cemetery in Tatavla, ruined 51 tombs and pillaged undisturbed the grounds.||(Violation of Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne).|
|(Violation of Articles 3, 6, 8, 9, and 14 of European Convention on Human Rights)|
|68)||In early November 1998, the Turkish Government arbitrarily removed the supervisory committee returning of the Seminary in Halki, on the grounds of their alleged ‘mismanagement’ and ‘propaganda against the Turkish State’, condemning in fact the whole Institution to shut down. In the context a brief list containing of only some of the incidents against the Greeks of Constantinople, Imvros and Tenedos, the population contraction of the ethnic Greeks in Turkey is easily understood.|
After the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997, the Commission has reported regulary to the Council and the Parliament on progress made by the candidate states in preparing of membership. It is quite interest to read the opinions of the Committee Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy on the yearly regular reports
(2001 – 2004) for Republic of Turkey.
Although on the first 6 month of 2002, 55,000 people signed the petition (www.greece.org/themis/halki) for reopen the Seminary of Halki, petitions that supported by two presidents of U.S.A. (Bill Clinton and George Bush), today Seminary is still close on operative.
All the readers of this report must keep in their mind that Greeks from Constantinople never use violence, we never fight against any Turkish government. We have one mistake. For that Republic of Turkey punish us: Our crime was “To be Greek, Orthodox Christians from Constantinople”. Finally we like to notice that “history repeated it self”.
In the light of the above, the following proposals are made:
|1)||Denunciation of the Turkish Republic before the International Organizations (UNO, OSCE, European Parliament, Council of Europe), all the members of the European and US Parliamentary Bodies with regard to the flagrant violations planty of the Treaties and other more recent Agreements.|
|2)||A commanding demand that Turkey respect all of its obligations under its conventional commitments to the Greeks remaining in Turkey, with the abolishment and legal quashing of all the legal decrees and decisions of the Turkish authorities involving them and violating their freedoms and human rights.|
|3)||More effective protection and guarantee of the required conditions for the unhindered operation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which is the revered crown of Orthodoxy, towards the performance of its high ecumenical mission.|
|4)||A demand for damages in regard to the properties of the Greeks of Turkey, who were forced to flee as a result of the anti-Greek measures adopted in 1964.|
|5)||A demand for the protection of the lives and properties of the Greeks still remaining in their hearths and the salvage of the huge community property.|
|6)||The salvage and preservation intact of the invaluable cultural heritage of Hellenism.|
|7)||Recognition of September the 6th as a day of remembrance of the uprooting of the Greeks of Constantinople.|
|8)||Recognition of the refugee status of the Greeks of Turkey who were forced to leave their hearths in the last decades.|
|9)||At the time of the signature of the Treaty of Lausanne the population of the islands of Imvros and Tenedos was 93% Greek, and for that reason Turkey, upon receiving the islands, was forced under Article 14 of the Treaty of Lausanne to implement extended self administration. Today only 1% of the islanders are Greek, as a result of the orgy of violations of the Treaty of Lausanne by Turkey. In the 1980s the ‘mysterious’ and ‘unsolved’ murders of Christians led the few remaining Christians to abandon the islands, while the destruction of symbols of the Christian religion in the two islands was incessant.|
|10)||The Turkish Government is required, under Article 42 of the Treaty of Lausanne, ‘to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments’. Nevertheless, for 80 whole years, since the date the Treaty was signed, the churches and Christian cemeteries have been the constant target of attacks, ruin and looting.|
Speros Vryonis Jr., The mechanism of catastrophe (The Turkish Pogrom of September 6-7 1955 and the destruction of the Greek community of Istanbul), 2005 greekworks.com.
Χριστόφορος Χριστίδης, επιμέλεια Γιάννης Δ. Στεφανίδης, Τα Σεπτεμβριανά, Κέντρο Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών, Αθήνα 2000.
Κυρατζόπουλος Βασίλης, Η Άγραφη Γενοκτονία Κωνσταντινούπολη Σεπτέμβριος 1955, Πράξη Ντροπής που αποκρύπτεται από την “Άλλη Τάξη Πραγμάτων”, Εκδόσεις Τσουκάτου, Αθήνα 2006.
Οι Οικουμενικοί Πατριάρχες (1923-1991), Σύνδεσμος των εν Αθήναις Μεγαλοσχολιτών, ομάδα έξι ομιλητών, Αθήνα 1997.
Δημήτρη Καλούμενου, Η Σταύρωση του Χριστιανισμού, The Crucifixion of Christianity, πρώτη έκδοση Αθήνα 1966.
Σεπτεμβριανά 1955: Η “νύχτα των κρυστάλλων” του Ελληνισμού της Πόλης, Εκδόσεις Τσουκάτου, Αθήνα 1998.
Denying Human Rights & Ethnic Identity, The Greeks of Turkey, Helsinki Human Rights Watch, Η.Π.Α. 1992.
Ιωάννης Γεωργίου Βαρνάκος, Η απεμπόληση των κυριαρχικών μας δικαιωμάτων, Νέα Θέσις, Αθήνα 1994.
Avukat Orhan Cemal Fersoy Adnan Menderes, Mayataş Matbaacılık, Κωνσταντινούπολη 1971.
Σαρρής Νεοκλής, Η Άλλη Πλευρά, εκδόσεις Γραμμή, Αθήνα 1977.
Αρχιμ. Φιλαρέτου Βιτάλη, Μάξιμος ο Ε’ (Ο μαρτυρικός Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως), δίτομο, Αθήνα 1996.
Dilek Güven, 6-7 Eylül Olayları, Tarih Vakfı, Κων/πολη 2005.
Fahri Çoker Arşivi, 6-7 Eylül Olayları, fotoğraflar – belgeler, Tarih Vakfı, Κων/πολη 2005.
Φαΐκ Οκτέ (Faik Ökte), Varlık Vergisi, ο ληστρικός νόμος του φόρου περιουσίας των Ελλήνων της Κωνσταντινούπολης, Ηρόδοτος, Θεσσαλονίκη, εν Αθήνα Σύλλογος Κωνσταντινουπολιτών 1998.
Fuat Dündar, Οι μειονότητες στην Τουρκία, Infognomon, μετάφραση Άννα Κόντου, Αθήνα 2003.
Rıdvan Akar, Aşkale Yolcuları, Belge Yayınları, Κωνσταντινούπολη 1999.
Hülya Demir – Rıdvan Akar, Οι Τελευταίοι Εξόριστοι της Κωνσταντινούπολης, Εκδ. Τσουκάτου, Αθήνα 2004. Όπως Istanbul”un son süegunleri, εκδόσεις Iletisim Κωνσταντινούπολη 1994.
United Nations Treaty Collection, www.unhchr.ch
Πανελλήνια Ένωση Ποντίων Αξιωματικών “Αλέξανδρος Υψηλάντης”, Οι Ανθελληνικοί Διωγμοί εν Τουρκία, Αθήνα 1994.
Hirschon Renée, Κληρονόμοι της Μικρασιατικής Καταστροφής, Μορφωτικό Ίδρυμα Εθνικής Τράπεζας, Αθήνα 2004.
Κυρατζόπουλος Βασίλης, Λύκου Ανάβασις, εκδόσεις Τσουκάτου, Αθήνα 2006.
Λεωνίδας Κουμάκης, The Miracle, self-publishing, Athens 1982.
The International legal definition of Genocide, www.preventgenocide.org
Frank Weber, University of Missouri 1979, Ο Επιτήδειος Ουδέτερος, εκδόσεις Θετίλη, Αθήνα 1983.
Adamantia Pollis, 1993, “Eastern Orthodoxy & Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 15.
Leo Kuper, Genocide, 1981 U.K. Penguin, 1982 U.S.A. Yale University.
William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law, 2000 U.K. Cambridge University Press.
Alexey Miller, The Romanov Empire and the Jews, Yale University.
Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian Genocide, History, Policies, Ethnics, St. Martin’s Press, 1991, N.Y. Η.Π.Α.
Alexis Alexandris, Τhe Greek minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish relations 1918- 1974. Αθήνα 1983
Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1992.
Roger Clark, “Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg”, in George Ginsburgs and Vladimir Kudriaytsev (edss), Τhe Nuremberg Trials and International Law, pp. 179. Vahakn Dadrian, “The Documentation of the World War I Armenian Massacres in the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 1991, Vol. 23.
Vahakn Dadrian, “Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law”. George Ginsburgs and Vladimir Kudriavtsev (eds.), The Nuremberg Trials and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1990.
Israel Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Macmillan, New York 1990.
Donald Horowitz, Deadly Ethnic Riot, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2002.
William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Jacques Semelin, “Massacres” in Dinah Sehlton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide, vol. 2, pp. 661-666.
Dinah Shelton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference, 2004.
Carl Skutsch (ed.) Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities, Routledge, London, 2005. “American Foreign Policy in the Ongoing Greco-Turkish Crisis as Contributing Factor to Destabilization” in: UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 2:1997:1. pp. 69-89.
Nicole van Wees. Ta Septemvriana. Groningen 1996.
Erik Zürcher, Turkey: A modern history. 3rd edition, London 2004.
Drazen Petrovic, Ethnic Cleansing-An Attempt Methodology, 1994.
Βασίλειος Σταυρίδης, Οι Οικουμενικοί Πατριάρχες 1860 μέχρι σήμερον, εκδόσεις Εταιρείας Μακεδονικών Σπουδών, Θεσσαλονίκη 1977.
Süreyya Şahin, Fener Patrikhanesi ve Türkiye, εκδόσεις Ötüken, Κωνσταντινούπολη 1980.
Yorgo Benlisoy, Elçin Macar, Fener Patrikhanesi, εκδόσεις Ayraç, Άγκυρα 1996. Aziz Nesin, Salkım salkım asılacak adamlar (κρεμάστε τους σαν τσαμπιά), Κωνσταντινούπολη 1987.
Hasan İzzetin Dinamo, 6-7 Eylül kasırgası (Θύελλα της 6 -7 Σεπτεμβρίου), Κωνσταντινούπολη 1971.
Σαρρής Νεοκλής, Εξωτερική Πολιτική και πολιτικές εξελίξεις στην Α’ Τουρκική Δημοκρατία (Γόρδιος, Αθήνα 1992).
Δ. Μιχαλόπουλος, Ελλάδα και Τουρκία 1950-1959, Η Χαμένη Προσέγγιση, εκδόσεις Ροές, Αθήνα 1989.
Μιχάλης Ιγνατίου, Το “Σεμινάριο της Ρώμης”, εκδόσεις Ποντίκι, Αθήνα 1989.
Ιστορία των Ελλήνων, εκδόσεις Δομή, Αθήνα 2006. Περιοδικό “Τότε” Εκδόσεις Μέτρον, Αθήνα.
Ημερολόγια του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως 1905, 1906, 1907.
THE ISTANBUL POGROM OF 6-7 SEPTEMBER 1955
IN THE LIGHT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
By Professor Dr. Alfred de Zayas
Geneva, 4 November 2006
The September 1955 pogrom (sometimes referred to in Greek sources as Septembriana ) was a riot that occurred under the direct responsibility and coordination of Turkish authorities. It was a “crime against humanity” , comparable in scope to the 1938 Kristallnacht in Germany, which had been carried out by the Nazi SS and SA against Jewish synagogues and property in November 1938.
The Septembriana satisfies the criteria of article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, because the “intent to destroy in whole or in part” the Greek minority in Istanbul was demonstrably present, the pogrom having been orchestrated by the government of Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes. Even if the number of deaths (estimated at 37) among members of the Greek community was relatively low, the result of the pogrom was the flight and emigration of the Greek minority in Istanbul that once numbered some 100,000 and was subsequently reduced to a few thousand. The vast destruction of Greek property, businesses and churches is evidence of the intention of the Turkish authorities to terrorize the Greeks in Istanbul into abandoning the territory, thus eliminating the Greek minority under Turkish jurisdiction. This practice falls within the ambit of the crime of “ethnic cleansing”. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has recently interpreted the Genocide Convention broadly and extended the scope of offences that may be subsumed under the crime of genocide. In two of its judgments the ICTY has determined that “ethnic cleansing” can amount to genocide .
Turkey is a party to the 1948 Genocide Convention since 1950. Although Turkey is not a party to the 1968 Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity, modern international law imposes the principle of non-prescription to genocide and crimes against humanity. Accordingly, the obligation to punish the guilty and the responsibility of Turkey to make reparations to the victims and their survivors for the events of 6-7 September 1955 have not lapsed with time.
Seen in isolation, the Istanbul pogrom can be seen as a grave crime under Turkish domestic law and international law. However, the Septembriana must be seen in the historical context of a religious-driven genocidal program that saw many pogroms before, during and after World War I, within the territories of the Ottoman Empire, including the elimination of the Greek
communities of Pontos, Asia Minor and the atrocities against the Greeks of Smyrna in September 1922. It is in the light of the larger picture that the genocidal character of the Istanbul pogrom best comes to light. It should be noted, however, that whereas the characterization of the Septembriana as a form of genocide lends it greater emotional impact, the legal consequences of the Istanbul pogrom are essentially the same, whether it is classified under the rubric genocide or “crimes against humanity”.
Prior to the pogrom on 6-7 September 1955, the Turkish government had engaged in systematic incitement of public opinion against the Greek minority, partly in connection with the on-going dispute over Cyprus. A student movement calling itself “Cyprus is Turkish” was particularly virulent in the anti-Greek propaganda. On 28 August 1955 the largest daily Hürriyet threatened that “if the Greeks dare touch our brethren, then there are plenty of Greeks in Istanbul to retaliate upon” At 12:10 in the morning of 6 September 1955 an explosion occurred in the courtyard of the Turkish Consulate in Thessaloniki, a building adjacent to the house where Kemal Atatürk had been born. The press immediately blamed the Greeks and published photos of Atatürk’s house purporting to show extensive damage. At the 1960-61 Yasssiada trial against Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and Foreign Minister Fatin Zorlu it became known that the explosion had been carried out by Turkish agents under orders from the Turkish Government .
Beginning around 17:00 in the late afternoon, Turkish mobs devastated the Greek, Armenian and Jewish districts of Istanbul, killing an estimated 37 Greeks, and destroying and looting their churches, places of worship, homes and businesses. The pogrom was not spontaneous, but was centrally organized, many of the rioters were recruited in Istanbul and in the provinces by the Demokrat Parti authorities and taken into Istanbul by train, trucks and some 4,000 taxis with instructions of what to destroy and what not. They were given axes, crowbars, acetylene torches, petrol, dynamite and large amounts of rocks in carts. Predictably, the riots got out of control, the mobs shouting “Evvela Mal, Sonra Can” (“First your property. Then your life”) The Turkish militia and police that coordinated the pogrom refrained from protecting the lives and properties of the Greek victims. Their function was instead to preserve Turkish property and protect it from also being destroyed.
The events are best described in English by Professor Speros Vryonis in his 2005 book The Mechanism of Catastrophe, which also draws on a vast amount of Turkish sources, including the Yassiada trials, and upon the substantive report by Helsinki Watch of 1992 on the human- and civil rights violations against the Greeks of Turkey. There is still no official Turkish government or police report on the violence of 6-7 September 1955.
Besides the deaths, there were thousands of injured, some 200 Greek women were raped, and there are reports of the raping of Greek boys. Many Greek men, including at least one priest, were subjected to forced circumcision. The riots were accompanied by enormous material damage, estimated by Greek authorities at 500 million US dollars, including the burning of churches, the devastation of shops and private homes. After the fall of the government of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes in 1960, he and other organizers of the pogrom were put on trial and convicted. The Yassiada Trial of 1960-61 provides abundant evidence as to the “intent” to terrorize and destroy the Greek minority of Istanbul. Menderes, Zorlu and their Minister of Economics, Hasan Polatkan, were executed.
Under customary international law, massacres such as occurred in Istanbul in September 1955 constitute international crimes. There are many norms of international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law that are pertinent in the examination of the Istanbul pogrom. Under these norms the pogrom, taken in isolation, entails a multiplicity of violations of international law. But it is in the historical context that the Istanbul pogrom emerges as part of a genocidal program aimed at the destruction of the Greek presence in all territories under Turkish rule.
Massacres committed by the Ottoman authorities against the Armenians during World War I were labeled by the British and the French governments as “crimes against humanity and civilization” as early as 1915. At the end of World War I, the victorious Allies agreed that the atrocities committed against the Christian minorities under Ottoman rule, including the Armenians, the Greeks from Pontos, Asia Minor, Eastern Thrace, and the Assyrians should be investigated and punished, and that the material damage should be compensated. Relevant precedents are article 230 of the Treaty of Sevres, which stipulated the obligation to punish and article 144, which stipulated the obligation to grant restitution and compensation.
Although the Ottoman State signed the Treaty of Sèvres, formal ratification never followed, and the Allies did not ensure its implementation. Such failure was attributable to the growing international political disarray following World War I, the rise of Soviet Russia, the withdrawal of British military presence from Turkey, the isolationist policies of the United States, the demise of the Young Turk regime and the rise of Kemalism in Turkey. Nevertheless, the criminality of the massacres against the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians had been acknowledged by the international community, even though no Turkish official was ever tried before an international tribunal and only few were indicted, tried and convicted by Turkish courts martial.
The term “genocide” was coined by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin in 1944 in connection with the Nazi murder of the Jews. The London Agreement of 8 August 1945 laid down the indictment for the Nuremberg
trials, including the offence of “crimes against humanity” under article 6c) of the Statute.
The 1948 Genocide Convention did not create the crime of “genocide“, but it formalized and codified the international prohibition of massacres. Article 1 of the Convention stipulates that “genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law”. Article 2 provides that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in par, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- killing members of the group;
- causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part “
Turkey acceded to the Convention on 31 July 1950, more than five years prior to the events of September 1955.
Of crucial importance here is the international rule of non-prescription, reflected in article I of the United Nations Convention on the Non- Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, according to which lapse of time does not extinguish the obligation to prosecute in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. As a consequence of this same principle, lapse of time does not extinguish the justiciability of claims to restitution. Moreover, there is an obligation erga omnes not to recognize the material consequences of genocide and crimes against humanity.
International law has continued its normative development in this direction. It is interesting to note that, although the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has no jurisdiction in connection with the Istanbul pogrom, it expands our understanding of the concept of genocide and its criminalization. Thus, Article 4 of the 1993 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia defines the crime of genocide, and Article 5(g) lists rape as a “crime against humanity”.
Similarly, Article 6 of the 1998 Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court defines genocide in the terms of the Genocide Convention, article 7 defines “crimes against humanity” in terms more explicit than those in the Nuremberg Statute. However, pursuant to article 11 of the Statute, the ICC shall have no competence ratione temporis to examine events that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Statute. .
In the domain of “soft law”, it is important to recall that in 1992 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 47/121 stipulating that the Yugoslav policy of “ethnic cleansing” was a “form of genocide.”
In 1995 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 50/192 which addresses the systematic practice of rape in the context of “ethnic cleansing” and reaffirmed “that rape in the conduct of armed conflict constitutes a war crime
and that under certain circumstances it constitutes a crime against humanity and an act of genocide as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.
In the field of international human rights law, Turkey adhered to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 15 September 2003. Article 6 protects the right to life, article 20 prohibits incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence, article 26 prohibits discrimination, and article 27 guarantees the rights of minorities. In November 2006 Turkey also ratified the Optional Protocol to ICCPR, but added a reservation precluding its retroactive application. In regional international law, Turkey signed the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on 4 November 1950 and ratified it on 18 May 1954. Turkey also ratified Protocol I on 22 June 1953. The European Convention protects the right to life, and its Protocol I protects the right to property. The 1955 pogrom should also be viewed from the perspective of International Human Rights Law.
Bearing in mind that law is not mathematics, judges have to determine how the norms apply to a particular set of facts. While one judge may conclude that a pogrom constitutes genocide, another may conclude that it does not go over the threshold. But since a pogrom entails multiple violations of general principles of law and human rights law, the obligation to punish the guilty and to provide reparation to the victims is essentially the same.
The Nuremberg judgment of 1946 convicted the Nazis of crimes against humanity, including genocide. Massacres against a State’s own citizens and permanent residents, such as the victims of the Kristallnacht (night of broken glass) of 9-10 November 1938 were also deemed to constitute a “crime against humanity.”
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has applied the concept of “genocide” to individual massacres and determined in the judgment against General Radislav Krstic that the massacre of Srebrenica constituted genocide. However, not every individual or political authority associated with the Srebrenica massacre has been charged with or convicted of genocide. The ICTY has also held that rape can in certain circumstances constitute the crime of genocide, and in its 2001 judgment against Kunarac, Kovac and Vucovic, the ICTY also found that rape constitutes a “crime against humanity”.
Trials under Turkish law. The principal architects of the Istanbul pogroms were tried, convicted and punished in 1961. Former Prime Minister Menderes and a total of 592 individuals were charged at the Yassiada Trials in 1960-61. The documentation and testimony emerging from this trial constitute sufficient sources for establishing the “intent” of the Menderes government to “destroy in whole or in part” the Greek minority in Istanbul..
The Doctrine of State Responsibility for Wrongful Acts
A general principle of international law stipulates that a State is responsible for injuries caused by its wrongful acts and must provide reparation for such injury. The Permanent Court of International Justice enunciated this principle in the Chorzow Factory Case as follows: “it is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation.”
It should be stressed that the wrong in question is not just a mere violation of international law engaging inter-state responsibility, but the gravest criminal violations of international law engaging, as the International Court of Justice has determined, international responsibility erga omnes – an obligation of the State toward the international community as a whole.
Thus, the international crime of genocide imposes obligations not only on the State that perpetrated the genocide, but also on the entire international community : (a) not to recognize as legal a situation created by an international crime, (b) not to assist the author of an international crime in maintaining the illegal situation, and (c) to assist other States in the implementation of the aforementioned obligations. In a very real sense, the legal impact of the erga omnes nature of the crime of genocide goes far beyond the mere retroactivity of application of the Genocide Convention. It imposes an affirmative obligation on the international community not to recognize an illegal situation resulting from genocide.
Imprescriptibility of genocide and crimes against humanity
When the United Nations drafted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (adopted 26 November 1968, in force 11 November 1970), it clearly and deliberately pronounced its retroactive application. In Article 1 it stipulated “No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission… crimes against humanity, whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945… and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention…” (emphasis added).
The principle of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege praevia (no crime without law, no penalty without previous law), laid out in paragraph 1 of article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is conditioned as follows in paragraph 2: “Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.”
Although Turkey is not a State party to the Convention on the Non- Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, international law is clear on the subject: there is no prescription on the prosecution of the crime of genocide, regardless of when the genocide occurred, and the obligation of the responsible State to make restitution or
pay compensation for properties obtained by means of genocide does not lapse with time.
In its judgment of 6 October 1983 in the case concerning Klaus Barbie, the French Cour de Cassation rejected the objections of the defence and stated that the prohibition on statutory limitations for crimes against humanity is now part of customary international law. France also enacted a law on 26 December 1964 dealing with crimes against humanity as ” imprescriptibles ” by nature.
Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that “provisions on prescription are inadmissible” when they “are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance,” since they “violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.”
Imprescriptibility of the right to restitution and compensation in cases of genocide
and crimes against humanity.
Because of the continuing character of the crime of genocide in factual and legal terms, the remedy of restitution is not foreclosed by the passage of time. Thus the survivors of the Istanbul pogrom, as the survivors of the massacres against Greeks of Pontos and Smyrna possess standing, both individually and collectively, to advance a claim for restitution. This has been also the case with the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, who have successfully claimed restitution against many States where there property had been destroyed or confiscated. Whenever possible restitutio in integrum (complete restitution, restoration to the previous condition) should be granted, so as to re-establish the situation that existed before the violation occurred.
But where restitutio in integrum is not possible, compensation may be substituted as a remedy.
Restitution remains a continuing State responsibility also because of Turkey’s current human rights obligations under international treaty law, particularly the corpus of international human rights law.
The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provide in part:
“Reparation may be claimed individually and where appropriate collectively, by the direct victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the immediate family, dependants or other persons or groups of persons closely connected with the direct victims.”
Particularly important are Principle 9:
“Statutes of limitations shall not apply in respect of periods during which no effective remedies exist for violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Civil claims relating to reparations for gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law shall not be subject to
statutes of limitations.”
and Principle 12: “Restitution shall be provided to re-establish the situation that existed prior to the violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Restitution requires, inter alia, … return to one’s place of residence and restoration of… property.”
UN Sub-Commission member Mr. Louis Joinet presented two reports containing comparable language:
“Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to reparation on the part of the victim or his beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State to make reparation and the possibility of seeking redress from the perpetrator”.
Although the International Criminal Court, established in July 2002, does not have jurisdiction to examine instances of genocide having occurred prior to the entry into force of the Rome Statute, it does reaffirm the international law obligation of providing reparation to victims. Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Statute stipulates that “The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations”, which it defines as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. This international law obligation to make reparation for violations of rights is reaffirmed in the General Assembly Resolution 60/1§47 of 16 December 2005, which annexes the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.” Pursuant to Article 11 of these Principles, the remedies for gross violations of human rights include the victim’s right to “(a) equal and effective access to justice; (b) adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered; c) access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms”. Pursuant to article 6: “…statutes of limitations shall not apply to gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law which constitute crimes under international law.”
In the context of reparation for gross violations of human rights, two other general principles are relevant. the principle ex injuria non oritur jus (from a wrong no right arises), that no State should be allowed to profit from its own violations of law, and the principle of “unjust enrichment”. It is a general principle of law that the criminal cannot keep the fruits of the crime.
In denying the applicability of statutes of limitation to restitution claims by survivors of the Holocaust, Professor Irwin Cotler argues:
“The paradigm here is not that of restitution in a domestic civil action involving principles of civil and property law, or restitution in an international context involving state responsibility in matters of appropriation of property of aliens; rather, the paradigm – if there can be such a paradigm in so abhorrent a crime – is that of restitution for Nuremberg crimes, which is something dramatically different in precedent and principles… Nuremberg crimes are imprescribable, for Nuremberg law – or international laws
anchored in Nuremberg Principles – does not recognize the applicability of statutes of limitations, as set froth in the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”.
The Doctrine of non-recognition
Hersch Lauterpacht points out that the doctrine of non-recognition is based on the principle of ex injuria non oritur jus: “This construction of non- recognition is based on the view that acts contrary to international law are invalid and cannot become a source of legal rights for the wrongdoer. That view applies to international law one of ‘the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.’ The principle ex injuria jus non oritur is one of the fundamental maxims of jurisprudence. An illegality cannot, as a rule, become a source of legal right to the wrongdoer.”.
Similarly, the “Friendly Relations” Resolution of the General Assembly stipulates that: “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” In cases of “ethnic cleansing”, the rights of the entire international community have been affected, and every State is obliged to refrain from giving recognition or effect to the consequences of the crime. See, for instance, Article 10 of the Declaration of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights concerning the illegality of population transfers, which provides in part: “Where acts or omissions prohibited in the present Declaration are committed, the international community as a whole and individual States, are under an obligation … not to recognize as legal the situation created by such acts…”
On 9 July 2004 the International Court of Justice issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Construction of a Wall by Israel, concluding that States had an obligation of non-recognition: “Given the character and the importance of the rights and obligations involved, the Court is of the view that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.”
Bringing the Istanbul pogrom before an international tribunal Although Turkey ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and was bound by its provisions when the Istanbul pogrom took place, the individual complaints procedure before the European Court under article 34 of the Convention requires that petitions be submitted within six months after the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Bearing in mind that the events occurred 51 years ago, the Court would declare the petition inadmissible ratione temporis pursuant to article 35, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Inter-state complaints, however, may be lodged under article 33 of the
Convention and any State party to the Convention could submit such an inter- state application. The friendly settlement procedure could lead to appropriate lump-sum reimbursement to the victims and their survivors.
Turkey ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2003 and acceded to the Optional Protocol thereto in November 2006. By virtue of the OP. the Human Rights Committee is thus competent to examine individual complaints against Turkey. However, Turkey has made a reservation to the OP restricting its application to facts and events occurring prior to the entry into force of the OP for Turkey, thus excluding an examination of the violations of the right to life (article 6) and cruel and degrading treatment (article 7) accompanying the Istanbul pogrom. Turkey has also not given the declaration under article 41 of ICCPR, which would give the Committee competence to entertain inter-state complaints. Thus, the only avenue of redress would be through the examination of Turkey’s periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee under article 40 ICCPR. Although this is not a complaints procedure, the Human Rights Committee would take cognizance of the failure of the State party to give appropriate restitution and compensation to the victims of the Istanbul pogrom.
Pursuant to article 34 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, only States may be parties in cases before the Court. Thus, individuals or groups lack standing before the ICJ Although the Court can examine ad hoc cases submitted by States parties, it cannot do so if one of the parties does not accept the ICJ’s competence, and Turkey has let its declaration under article 36(2), recognizing as compulsory ipso facto the jurisdiction of the Court expire.
A contentious case concerning the 1948 Genocide Convention, however, could be entertained notwithstanding the absence of a declaration by Turkey under article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute. Indeed, pursuant to article 36, paragraph 1, this would be possible, because Turkey is a State party to the Genocide Convention, which stipulates in article IX that “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request to any of the parties to the dispute.” Greece is also a party to the Genocide Convention since 8 December 1954, i.e. prior to the Istanbul pogrom. Accordingly, it would be possible for Greece (or for any other State party to the Genocide Convention) to argue before the ICJ that the Istanbul pogrom constituted “genocide” within the meaning of the Convention, and that Turkey is obliged to ensure appropriate compensation to the victims and their survivors.
Greece (or any State party to the Genocide Convention) could also invoke article VIII of the Genocide Convention, which provides that any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action as they consider appropriate for the “suppression” of genocide.
“Suppression” must mean more than just retributive justice. In order to suppress the crime, it is necessary to suppress, as far as possible, its consequences. This entails, besides punishing the guilty, providing restitution and compensation to the surviving generations.
Another possibility would be to have the United Nations General Assembly, pursuant to article 96 of the UN Charter, refer the matter to the ICJ for an advisory opinion, as was done in the cases of the “Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)” (1970- 1971), and “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (2003-2004). The ICJ could, pursuant to article 65 of the ICJ Statute, consider the question whether the consistent pattern of Turkey’s anti-Greek measures constituted “crimes against humanity” or “genocide”, and could then fix the level of compensation and restitution required.
Admittedly, the criminal law aspects of the Genocide Convention are of lesser relevance in the context of the Istanbul pogrom, since most of the principal perpetrators of the Septembriana are no longer alive, or are too old to be prosecuted. On the other hand, the Greek properties that were destroyed and not sufficiently compensated for, give rise to legitimate claims against the Turkish State. In this context, it is worth noting the important restitution of many churches and monasteries in the ex Soviet republics including Armenia, restitution that was effected in the 1990’s for confiscations that had occurred seventy years earlier, following the Bolshevik revolution. Based on this precedent, compensation for the damage caused to Greek churches and monasteries would appear not just morally mandated, but also implementable in practice.
A determination of the crime of genocide by the International Court of Justice would facilitate the settlement of claims for restitution, including the identification of cultural and other properties destroyed, such as churches, monasteries and other assets of historic and cultural significance to the Greek communities of Turkey.
The Istanbul pogrom was a phase in the Ottoman/Turkish policy of elimination of the Greek presence from their 3,000 – year old homelands in Asia Minor, Thrace, the Aegean and Constantinople itself . Seen in the context of a centuries-old process of discrimination, massacres and expulsion, it can be classified as a form of genocide. At the same time, the Istanbul pogrom also falls within the definition of crimes against humanity in the Nuremberg Statute and in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Because these crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation, Turkey still has important international legal obligations to meet.
Turkey aspires to membership in the European Union, which is a community
not only of commercial interests but also of certain fundamental moral values. By acknowledging its responsibility for the Istanbul pogrom, for other massacres, and for the consistent pattern of religious intolerance, Turkey would make its commitment to human rights, including the right to truth, more credible. It is incompatible with this commitment to human rights when those responsible for the Istanbul pogrom are rehabilitated and schools and airports are named after them. This poses a serious challenge to the European community.
A modern, democratic Turkey, bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, must still address these issues.
© Alfred de Zayas, J.D. (Harvard), Dr.phil. (Göttingen)
Professor of International Law, Geneva School of Diplomacy Professor of International Relations, Schiller International University (Leysin)
Visiting Professor of Law (masters program), Universidad de Alcala de Henares (Madrid)
Former visiting professor of Law, Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales (Gèneve), DePaul University College of Law (Chicago), University of British Columbia (Vancouver), Univesität Trier, Académie Internationale du Droit Constitutionnel (Tunis)
Former Secretary, UN Human Rights Committee, Chief of Petitions Division at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Author of “Nemesis at Potsdam” (Routledge), “The German Expellees” (Macmillan), “Heimatrecht ist Menschenrecht” (Universitas), “Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice” (with Cherif Bassiouni) (Transnational), etc.
Président, P.E.N. International, Centre Suisse romand
- “Pogrom” is a term commonly used to refer to anti-Jewish riots in Russia, particularly in 1881-82, 1903. and 1905 in Odessa, Kiev and other cities and villages of the Russian Empire One of the most infamous massacres was the Kishinev Pogrom of 6-7 April 1903, in which 47 Jewish persons lost their lives and mob violence caused considerable property damage in Chisinau, the capital of Bessarabia (now the Republic of Moldova). Parallels can be drawn to the events of 6-7 September 1955 in Istanbul, where the number of Greek victims was also relatively low and the involvement of the Russian (Turkish) authorities in the preparation of the riots and the failure of the Russian (Turkish) authorities to repress them raise the same issue of State responsibility. Both the pogroms against the Jewish population of Russia and the September 1955 massacres in Istanbul led to mass emigration of the Jewish population of Russia and of the Greek population of Istanbul. See John Klier, “Pogroms , Pre Soviet Russia” in Dinah Shelton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference, 2004, Vol. II, pp. 812-815. Of similar magnitude was
the Kielce pogrom on 4 July 1946 in Kielce, Poland, where some 41 Jewish Holocaust survivors were massacred during riots in Kielce, Poland.
- Theodoros Karakostas, “Black September”, http://www.greece.org:8080/opencms/opencms/HEC_Projects/Genocide/en/6_Arc hiv
- Article 6 c) of the Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 1945.
- Rita Thalmann, “Kristallnacht” in Dinah Shelton, Encyclopedia of Genocide, vol. 2, pp. 626-628. No less than 257 synagogues and some 7,500 shops were destroyed or damaged. The number of Jews killed in the rioting is unknown, estimates between 36 and 91 being frequently given.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved and proposed for signature and ratification by General Assembly Resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948; entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII. 140 States parties in January 2006.
- Speros Vryonis, The Mechanism of Catastrophe, New York, 2005, Appendix B, List of the dead in the pogrom, pp. 581 et seq. Thirty victims are identified, three unidentified bodies were dug out of destroyed shops, three burned bodies were found in a sack in Besiktas. Leonidas Koumakes, The Miracle, Athens 1982, speaks of the death of over twenty people, pp. 54-55. Lois Whitman of Helsinki Watch lists fifteen deaths in The Greeks of Turkey, p. 50, Senator Homer Capehart and journalist Noel Barber report sixteen deaths.
- Helsinki Watch (Human Rights Watch) The Greeks of Turkey, New York, 1992, pp. 6-8 “After the population exchange there were between100,000 and 110,000 Greeks in Turkey, most of them in Istanbul and a smaller number on the islands of Imbros and Tenedos. Today, the Greek community does not appear to number more than 2,500 – about 2,000 in Istanbul and about 480 on the two islands.” In his report of 11 August 2000 to the UN General Assembly on the “Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance”, the Special Rapporteur, Abdelfattah Amor, quotes statistics of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs according to which there were between 3,500 and 4,000 Orthodox Greeks in Turkey. UN Doc. A/55/280/Add,1, p. 3.
- On 2 August 2001, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that the events at Srebrenica in July 1995 constituted “genocide”. The actual number of persons killed in Srebrenica is, however, unknown. Of the 7,000 missing Muslims, 2,028 bodies were actually exhumed from mass graves, and the Chamber noted that a number of these had died in combat.
- In his report of 11 August 2000 to the UN General Assembly on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance, the Special Rapporteur, Abdelfattah Amor reports on his findings during his visit to Turkey from 30 November to 9 December 1999. He reflected his impressions from consultations with the authorities and with non- governmental organizations and independent Turkish experts. He put the prevailing intolerance in historical context: “In its relations with Europe, the Ottoman Empire had to deal with the question of its non-Muslim minorities in the context of European claims to hegemony, often expressed under the pretext of providing protection for these minorities. In these circumstances Turkish society felt itself weakened and under threat and attempted to find scapegoats within its midst, in this case the Christians … during the first world war … when it came to the Greeks in the Aegean, the State, acting on the basis of nationalistic ideas, drove out the Greek community by instigating night-time attacks on farms, and popularized its efforts by mobilizing the Muslim religion against the Christians. After the establishment of the Republic… the State pursued this nationalistic bent, including its anti-Christian component… in particular in 1932,
legislation prohibited Greeks from practicing certain professions (for example, law 2007); in 1942, a wealth tax was aimed primarily at non-Muslims, who were economically very active, in an effort to Turkicize the economy bz imposing prohibitive taxes that forced people to sell their property; in 1955, anti-Christian riots broke out, apparently linked to the Cyprus issue (a bomb was placed bz an official of the Ministry of the Interior at the family home of Ataturk in order, it was alleged, to provoke attacks on Christians); in 1964, as a result of tensions over the Cyprus issue, Turkey broke its agreement with Greece and prohibited all commercial dealings by Greeks holding a Greek passport, leading thereby to the departure of some 40,000 Greeks… ” UN Doc. A/55/280/Add.1, paras 62-63. In 1992 Helsinki Watch noted “On October 11, 1964, the Turkish newspaper, Cumhuriyet, reported that 30,000 Turkish nations of Greek descent had left permanently, in addition to the Greeks who had been expelled. The Greeks were not allowed to sell their houses or property or to take money from their bank accounts”. Helsinki Watch, The Greeks in Turkey p. 9. See also Ministerial Decree No. 6/3807/1964 ordering the seizure of all real property and bank accounts belonging to Greek citizens. Ministerial Decree No 3706/1964 prohibited Greek citizens from acquiring real property in Turkey.
- The Cyprus issue was a convenient pretext to incite the populace to violence against the Greeks. The Ottoman and Turkish governments had a long established policy against the Greek minorities, which manifested itself not only in riots, but also in the anti-Greek laws (reminiscent of the Nazi Nuremberg laws) that excluded Greeks from certain professions, the special Wealth Tax of 1942, the recruitment of Greeks and Armenians into special work battalions during World War II, etc. Vryonis, op. cit., pp. 32-48.
- Alexis Alexandris, Greek Minority of Istanbul, Centre for Asia Minor Studies, Athens, 1992, p. 256.
- On 6 September Istanbul papers carried headlines like “Greek terrorists defile Atatürks birthplace”. On 7 September 1955 Turkish State radio carried a broadcast
saying in part: “The criminal attack undertaken against the house of our dear Atatürk and our consulate in Salonika, added to the deep emotion created over a period of months in public opinion by the developments in connection with the question of Cyprus… has provoked demonstrations on the part of large masses which have continued … in Istanbul until late last night.” Quoted in Vryonis, op cit. p. 118, 193.
- The agent provocateur in Thessaloniki, the student Oktay Engin, was acquitted at the Yassiada Trial, and lived to occupy high positions in the Turkish State after the Istanbul pogrom. Vryonis, op. cit., p. 530.
- According to various sources the riots began in various parts of Istanbul and Izmir between 4 and 8 p.m. Vryonis brings a table according to which the pogrom struck Yedikule, Samatya, Beyoglu, Siraselviler, Yesilkoy at 7 p.m, Edirnekapi at 8:30 pm, Kalyoncu Kulluk at 9 p.m., Aksaray at 11 p.m., Kurtulus “when night fell”, and Kuzguncuk “after midnight”. Op cit. p. 103-4.
- The Patriarchate in dispatch 139 (Istanbul to Washington DC) reported that 61 churches, 4 monasteries, 2 cemeteries and 36 Greek schools had been devastated. Vryonis, op. cit., p. 268. Between chapters three and four of the book, Vryonis publishes inter alia photos of the destroyed churches of Saint Constantine and Helen, Saint George Kyparissas, Saint Menat in Samatya, Saint Theodoroi in Langa, Church of the Metamorphonis, the Panagia in Belgratkapi , etc. as well as cemeteries and the open and desecrated tombs of the ecumenical patriarachs. Op. cit. between pages 288 and 289 in a 90 picture section. These photographs of the destructions were taken by
D. Kaloumenos and smuggled out of Turkey by the Journalist G. Karagiorgas. The
Athens Newspaper Ethnos published some early photos on 12/9/1955. D. Kaloumenos published more photos in Greece after his expulsion from Turkey in 1957 (The Crucifixion of Chirstianity,4th edition, Athens 2001). According to the Report of Human Rights Watch, The Greeks in Turkey, “More than 4,000 Greek shots were sacked and plundered; 38 Churches were burned own and 35 more churches vandalized; two monasteries and the main Greek Orthodox cemeteries were vandalized and, in some cases, destroyed; more than 2,000 Greek homes were vandalized and robbed, and 52 Greek schools were stripped of their furniture, books and equipment.”
- Targets were premarked with paint, and the attackers had lists, as had happened in Kristallnacht.
- Vryonis, op.cit., p. 211.
- The American Consul-General telegraphed the US State Department that “the destruction was completely out of hand with no evidence of police or military attempts to control. it. I personally witnessed the looking of many shops while the police stood idly by or cheered on the mob.” Helsinki Watch, The Greeks of Turkey, 1992, p. 7.
- Helsinki Watch is a New York-based non governmental organization, founded in 1978. It subsequently changed its name to Human Rights Watch.
- Vryonis, op. cit., p. 222. The estimates go to 2000 rapes. One of the most frequently mentioned cases of rape involved the Working Girls’ Hostel on the island of Büyükada (Prinkipo). List of victims were established by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and by the Greek Consul General.
 Ibid., p. 224.
- The United States Consulate in Istanbul sent a dispatch to the State Department on 27 September 1955: “A survey of the damage inflicted on public establishments of the Greek Community of Istanbul during the rioting on the night of September 6-7 shows that the destruction caused has been extremely widespread. In fact, only a very small percentage of community property appears to have escaped molestation. Although there are as yet no figures available assessing the damage sustained, the number of establishments attacked and the nature of the destruction caused … convey a clear picture of the scope of the devastation. In most cases the assault on these establishments involved a thorough wrecking of installations, furniture, equipment, desecration o f holy shrines and relics, and looting. In certain instances serious damage was inflicted on the buildings themselves by fire.” Helsinki Watch, the Greeks of Turkey, 1992, p. 7.
- Vryonis, op. cit., p. 248. According to the Istanbul police, 2,572 Greek businesses, 741 Armenian and 523 Jewish were destroyed. Vryonis provides a list of 329 destroyed businesses on pp.251-259. On a separate table he lists a survey according to which 1,100 shops and 600 homes owned by Greek nationals were destroyed, and 3,000 shops owned by Turkish citizens of Green ethnic origin (the Greek minority) and 1,500 homes, p. 270.
- Vryonis, op. cit., p. 220.
- Menderes was convicted primarily because of “abuse of discretionary funds” and less because of the pogrom itself. Bearing in mind the gravity of their offences, it is worrisome to note that young generation of Turks know little or nothing about their crimes and that subsequent governments have honored the memory of Menderes, Zorlu and Polatkan. A university in Aydin and the international airport in İzmir are named after Menderes, and his name has been given to two high schools, namely, Istanbul Bahcelievler Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi, and Aydin Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi.
- Alfred de Zayas, The Genocide Against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the Relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention, Brussels, 2005, p 3. See also Egon Schwelb, “Crimes Against Humanity”, 23 British Yearbook of International Law (1946), 178-226 at 181. Jean-Baptiste Racine, Le génocide des Arméniens. Origine et permanence du crime contre l’humanité, Dalloz-Sirez, 2006. Reymond Kevorkian,
Le Génocide des Arméniens, Odile Jacob, 2006
- Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres: “The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognize such Tribunal .” American Journal of International Law , Volume 15, Supplement, 1921, Official Documents, p. 235. The officers of the Ottoman State who had been imprisoned in Malta and should have been tried for crimes against humanity were granted an amnesty by virtue of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. See also William Schabas, Genocide in International Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 20-22.
- Article 144 of the Treaty of Sevres stipulated: “The Turkish Government recognizes the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I- Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future. The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognizes that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found . The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.” American Journal of International Law, Volume 15, Supplement, 1921, Official Documents, p. 210.
- André Mandelstam, La Societé des Nations et les puissances devant le Problème Arménien, 2d. ed. 1970.
- Paul Helmreich, From Paris To Sèvres, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, 1974, pp. 131 et seq.
- Although U.S. diplomats had condemned the genocide as early as 1915, the U.S. Government did not take any action to redress the injustices after the war. It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915 he had cabled Washington with the following description of the Ottoman policy: “Persecution of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations from one end of the empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction and destitution on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed form Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place.” Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell. America and the Age of
Genocide, Basic Books, New York, 2002, p. 6.
- Adopted by General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII) of 26 November 1968, entry into force 11 November 1970. Black’s Law Dictionary defines prescription as the “effect of the lapse of time in creating and destroying rights.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999). .
- When a State breaches an obligation erga omnes, it injures every other State. Thus, every State is concerned and has standing to raise a claim for redress. Certain obligations that apply to the entire community of States are, for instance, the obligation to refrain from committing jus cogens crimes such as aggression, torture and genocide See J.A. Frowein “Obligations erga omnes” in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 3, 1997, pp. 757-759.
- Under customary international law, as codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, crimes against humanity are defined as any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
- Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
- Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
- Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
- Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious,
gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
- Enforced disappearance of persons;
- The crime of apartheid;
- Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, art. 7(1), 2187, U.N.T.S. 90, entered into force July 1, 2002.
- General Assembly Resolution 47/121 of 18 December 1992, adopted by a recorded vote of 102 in favour, 0 against, and 57 abstentions.
- Adopted 22 December 1995.
- By Resolution 95 (1) of 11 December 1946, the General Assembly “affirms the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”, and in Resolution 96 (1) of the same date, it confirmed “that genocide is a crime in international law, which the civilized world condemns, and for the commission of which principals and accomplices – whether private individuals, public officials or statesmen, and whether the crime is committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds – are punishable”.
- There are many analogies to be drawn between the Kristallnacht of 1938 and the Istanbul pogrom 1955. Both had as driving force the governmental intention to terrorize the targeted group so that they would leave. Both made an effort to restrict the
number of persons killed, so as to avoid unnecessary international or diplomatic outrage. Both should be seen in the larger historical context. But while the Kristallnacht can be seen as the beginning of the Holocaust, the Istanbul pogrom can be seen as one of the last phases in the “ethnic cleansing” of the Greeks from territories under Muslim-Turkish jurisdiction. International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, Vol. I, pp. 248, 271.
- On 2 August 2001 General Krstic was the first person to be convicted of genocide by the ICTY. http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p609-e.htm
- See Akayesu Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T.
- http://www.un.org/icty/foca/trialc2/judgement/index.htm See also Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T and Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T. See also “ICTY Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, Releases Background Paper on Sexual Violence Investigation and Prosecution,” Press Release, The Hague, 8 December 1999.
- Ahmet Hamdi Basar, a former member of both parliament and the Demokrat- Parti wrote during the 1960 tribunals: “From the first day it had become clear that the events of September 6-7 had been organized by those who governed.” Yasadigimiz devrin ic yüzü, Ankara, 1960, p. 90. See also Vryonis, op.cit., p. 43.
- Malcolm Shaw, International Law, p. 481 “A breach of an international obligation gives rise to a requirement for reparation”; Wladyslaw Czaplinski, State Succession and State Responsibility, in Canadian Yearbook of International law 339 (1991): “State responsibility is a legal relationship created through the violation of an international legal obligation by a State; that violation gives rise to the duty to compensate for any resulting damage, one of the oldest principles of international law and universally recognized in international practice.” Karl Zemanek, “Responsibility of States: General Principles” in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4, 2000, pp. 219-229; Mohammed Bedjaoui, “Responsibility of States: Fault and Strict Liability”, in Bernhardt (ed.), pp. 212-216. Irwin Cotler, “Confiscated Jewish Property: The Holocaust, Thefticide and Restitution: A Legal Perspective” in : 20 Cardozo Law Review, December 1998, pp. 601-624, p. 610.
- Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v. Poland) , 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17. p. 29. Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, “German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia Cases”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. II, 1995, pp, 550- 553.
- Karl Zemanek, (op. cit. footnote 43), p. 226.
- Fédération nationale des deportés et internés et patriots et al v. Barbie , 78 International Law Reports 125, p. 135. See Doman, “Aftermath of Nuremberg: The Trial of Klaus Barbie”, 60 Colorado Law Review 449 (1989).
- Nouveau Code penal de 1994, Arts. 211-1 to 213-5. Jacques Francillon, “Aspects juridiques des crimes contre l’humanité”, in L’actualité du Génocide des Arméniens, Edipol. 1999, pp. 397-404 at 398.
- Inter-American Court, Barrios Altos Case, Judgment of 14 March 2001, p. 41. See also 31. General Assembly Resolutions 2338(XXII) of 18 December 1967, 2583 (XXIV) of 15 December 1969, 2712 (XXV) of 15 December 1970: 2840 (XXVI) of 18 December 1971, 3029 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972; 3074 (XXVIII) of 3 December 1973, etc.
- A leading international law expert in Europe, the late Professor Felix Ermacora, member of the UN Human Rights Committee, member of the European Commission on Human Rights, and Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights for Afghanistan and Chile, maintained this view. In a legal opinion on the continuing obligation to grant restitution to the expelled Germans from Czechoslovakia, some
250,000 of whom had perished in the course of their ethnic cleansing 1945-46,
Ermacora wrote: “Ist die Konfiskation von Privatvermögen Teil eines Völkermordes, so ist auch ihre Rechtsnatur Teil eines Rechtsganzen. D.h. der Vermögensentzug hatte für sich selbst im vorliegenden Gesamtzusammenhang Völkermordcharakter . Er unterliegt auch der Beurteilung aufgrund der Völkeremordkonvention, deren Partner sowohl die BRD als auch die Tschechoslowakei ist. Entsprechend den Regeln internationalen Rechts sind die Akte des Völkermordes – so auch die Vernichtung von
Lebensbedingungen, wie sie durch einen totalen Vermögensentzug stattgefunden haben und mit der Vertreibung kombiniert waren, zumindest nach der Konvention über die
Nichtverjährbarkeit von Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit nicht verjährbar.”
Ermacora, Die Sudetendeutschen Fragen, Munich, 1992, p. 178.
- Irwin Cotler, op. cit., p. 609. Sabine Thomsen, “Restitution” in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. 4, 2000, pp. 229-32. “Nuremberg 50 years later: The restitution of Jewish Property and Norwegian Justice”, Nordic Journal of International Law, 1998, No. 3, pp. 275-287.
- Commission on Human Rights, fifty-third session, Doc. E/CN.4/1997/104. Compare with the first report by Professor Theo van Boven E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 of 2 July 1993, section IX, and the second report C/CN.4/Sub.2/1996/7 of 24 May 1996.
- Special Rapporteur Louis Joinet, Principle 36 in document E/CN.4/Sub.23/1997/20 of 26 June 1997 and Principle 33 in Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1 of 2 October 1997.
 UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006.
- Peter D. Maddaugh and John D. McCamus, Law of Restitution, Aurora, Ontario, 1990, pp. 484-493. Even in the Old Testament we find an admonition against unjust enrichment, King James Version, 1 Kings, Chapter 21, verse 19: “Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?” The story is that Naboth, a man from Jezreel, had a vineyard on the outskirts of the city near King Ahab’s palace. The King coveted the land, because it was convenient to his palace, but Naboth did not want to sell, because the vineyard had been in his family for generations. Jezebel, Ahab’s wife, persuaded the King to have Naboth falsely accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. When King Ahab went to take possession of the vineyard, Elijah came to him and admonished the King: “Isn’t killing Naboth bad enough? Must you rob him, too? Because you have done this, dogs shall lick your blood outside the city just as they licked the blood of Naboth!” , The Living Bible (new translation), Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois.1971.
- J. W. Wade, “Acquisition of Property by willfully killing another – A Statutory Solution”, 49 Harvard Law Review, pp. 715 et seq. (1936); W. M. McGovern, “Homicide and Succession to Property” (1969) 68 Michigan Law Review, p. 65 et seq. There is ample case-law stating that “it is against public policy for a person who is guilty of feloniously killing another to take any benefit in that other person’s estate” Re Johnson, (1950) 2 D.L.R. 69, at pp. 75-6 D.L.R., 1 W.W.R. 263.
- (sic) imprescriptible.
- Irwin Cotler, op.cit., p. 621.
- H. Lauterpacht. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge, University Press, 1947 p. 420.
- GA Res.2625 of 24 October 1970. See also the Report of the United Nations International Law Commission ,53rd session 2001, commentary to Article 41 of the Draft Report on Responsibility of States, GAOR, 56th Session, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10), 2001, pp. 289-290. para. 9. See also Arts. 26 and 20 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility.
- Al Khasawneh Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23.
- Para. 159. http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imwp/imwpframe.htm
- Dickran Kouymjian, “La confiscation des bien et la destruction des monuments historiques comme manifestations du processus génocidaire” in L’actualité du Génocide des Arméniens, op cit., p. 227.
- See the Report on his visit to Turkey by Special Rapporteur Abdelfattah Amor “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance” to the UN General Assembly, A/55/280/Add.1, and its recommendation “The Government should take all necessary measures , consistent with international human rights standards, to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance.”
- On 20 April 2005 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a relevant resolution entitled “The Right to Truth”, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/66.
- The awkwardness of the prevailing situation becomes even more striking in the following hypothetical situation: How would the international community react, if the post-war German Government would name streets after Josef Goebbels and Reinhard Heydrich, the architects of Kristallnacht? What would the reaction of the international community had been, if, instead of making moral and material reparation, the German government had refused to render restitution and compensation to the victims and their survivors?
Alexandros Alavanos, The Greeks of Constantinople, Athens 1994.
Alexis Alexandris, The Greek minority of Istanbul and Greek-Turkish relations 1918- 1974. Athens 1983
Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1992.
Dimitrios Kaloumenos, The Crucifixion of Christianity, 4th Edition, Athens 2001. Roger Clark, “Crimes Against Humanity at Nuremberg”, in George Ginsburgs and Vladimir Kudriaytsev (eds.), The Nuremberg Trials and International Law, pp. 179 et seq.
Vahakn Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide. Ethnic conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Providence, Rhode Island, 1995.
Vahakn Dadrian, “The Documentation of the World War I Armenian Massacres in the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 1991, Vol. 23, pp. 549-576..
George Ginsburgs and Vladimir Kudriavtsev (eds.), The Nuremberg Trials and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1990.
Israel Gutman (ed-), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Macmillan, New York 1990. Dilek Güven, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Azinlik Politikalan ve Stratejileri Baglaminda 6-7 Eylül Olaylari, (Nationalismus, sozialer Wanbdel und Minderheiten in der Türkei: die
anti-griechischen Ausschreitungen vom 6-7. September 1955), Dissertation, Universität Bochum, unter Leitung von Professor Dr. Fikret Adanir, Historisches Institut Lehrstuhl Südosteuropäische Geshichte.
Helsinki Watch (Human Rights Watch), Denying Human Rights and Ethnic Identity. The Greeks of Turkey, New York 1992.
Donald Horowitz, Deadly Ethnic Riot, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, third edition , Oxford University Press, 2002.
William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law, Cambridge University Press,
Jacques Semelin, “Massacres” in Dinah Sehlton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide, vol. 2, pp. 661-666.
Dinah Shelton (ed.) Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference, 2004.
Carl Skutsch (ed.) Encyclopedia of the World’s Minorities, Routledge, London, 2005.
Telford Taylor, Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Alfred Knopf, New York 1992.
Speros Vryonis, The Mechanism of Catastrophe, New York 2005.
— “American Foreign Policy in the Ongoing Greco-Turkish Crisis as Contributing Factor to Destabilization” in: UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 2 :1997:1. pp. 69-89.
Nicole van Wees. Ta Septemvriana. Groningen 1996.
Leni Yahl, “Kristallnacht” in Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Volume 2, New York 1990, pp. 836-840.
Alfred de Zayas, The Genocide Against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the Relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention, Brussels, 2005
Erik Zürcher, Turkey: A modern history, 3rd edition, London 2004.