Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/echr-cyprus-v-turkey
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 21:50:45
Document Index: 41837896

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Arts 43', 'Arts 25', 'Arts 4', 'Arts 29', 'Arts 4', 'Art. 43', 'Arts 1', 'Art. 43', 'Arts 47', 'Arts 25', 'Arts 32']

ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook
[Source: European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001, available on http://hudoc.echr.coe.int]
[Source: European Court of Human Rights, Varnava and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 September 2009, available on http://hudoc.echr.coe.int]
[N.B.: The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “ECHR”) is available at http://conventions.coe.int]
(Cyprus v. Turkey) Is northern Cyprus an occupied territory within the meaning of IHL? Would it be, even if Turkey’s invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 had been lawful? Even if the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) were an independent State? Even if Turkey had no more troops in northern Cyprus? (GC IV, Art. 2; P I, Preamble, para. 5)
(Cyprus v. Turkey) For each problem considered by the Court, determine whether there was any violation of IHL. (HR, Arts 43 and 46; GC IV, Arts 25, 26, 49(1), 50(3), 53, 58, 64, 66, 136, 137 and 140)
Does IHL protect the people listed above? Which of these are “protected persons”? (GC IV, Arts 4, 13, 25 and 26)
(Cyprus v. Turkey) Is Turkey responsible for the acts of its armed forces in northern Cyprus? Is it responsible for the acts of the TRNC? Because it occupies the territory of the TRNC? Because it established the TRNC? Because it gives instructions to the organs of the TRNC? Does Turkey have a responsibility only in the terms of the ECHR, or also in the terms of IHL? (GC IV, Arts 29 and 47)
Must the TRNC authorities comply with the rules of GC IV applicable to occupied territories? With respect to the Greek Cypriots? With respect to the Turkish Cypriots? With respect to the Turkish settlers? (GC IV, Arts 4, 13, 25, 26, 29 and 47)
Under IHL, is Turkey responsible for the acts of Turkish settlers in northern Cyprus? On what grounds could it be responsible? By virtue of the ECHR? By virtue of IHL? Why does the Court not recognize such a responsibility in this particular case? On factual or legal grounds? (HR, Art. 43; GC IV, Arts 1, 4, 29 and 49(6))
Does the Court recognize the legal system of the TRNC? On what grounds? According to IHL, could Turkey have allowed the TRNC to set up such a legal system? (HR, Art. 43; GC IV, Arts 47, 54, 64 and 66)
What would Turkey’s obligations towards missing people have been under IHL? Did it fulfil these obligations? (GC IV, Arts 25, 26, 136, 137 and 140; P I, Arts 32-34)