Letter to Karamanlis from Ilhan Ahmet

ILHAN AHMET
Rodopis Member of Parliament – Nea Dimokratia

Komotini, 21/2/2005

To: the Prime Minister
Mr. Konstantinos Karamanlis


Mr. Prime Minister

The “Xanthi Turkish Union” was established in 1927 as the “Home of Xanthi Turkish Youth”, it was based in the town of Xanthi and it is historically the first association of the minority in Western Thrace. Soon afterwards two other associations were established: the “Komotini Turkish Youth Union”, founded in 1928, and the “Union of Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace”, founded in 1936.

For 56 years (1927-1983) the association, «Xanthi Turkish Union», functioned without problems. It never gave rise to any kind of problems or violations of the Greek legislation through its function and its activities. The “Xanthi Turkish Union” carries out cultural and sport activities, such as dance performances, painting exhibitions, music performances, concerts, participation to local football championships etc.

In 15th November 1983, the date of the proclamation of a state by Dektas, the Greek state argued that the proclamation of a state in Cyprus would dissolve the since then peaceful relations between the Christian and the Muslim population in Thrace and would thus threaten the public order. Therefore, it put into force a series of measures against the minority. Some of these measures were the dissolution of minority associations because of the use of the terms ‘Turkish’ and ‘Turks’ in their official titles. The minority once more in its history was called to stand on its shoulders the heavy load of the Greek Turkish relations and the Cyprus issue. The minority once more was used as the scapegoat and it was closely tied to the vehicle of the tough national policies, of the Greek Turkish relations, of the Cyprus issue and whatever these issues might imply. The two associations, the “Komotini Turkish Youth Union” and the “Union of Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace”, were irrevocably closed down by the courts’ final decision in 1987.

The Xanthi Turkish Union, during its 78 years of functioning (1927-2005), never acted against the public order and it was never prosecuted against any activity based on article 105 par. 3 of the Greek Civil Code. The judicial battle for the dissolution of the union lasts for 22 years and deplores until nowadays the people of the minority.

Minority people are still deprived of some basic rights, such as the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association with others. These are some of the rights that the Greek state, in terms of the treatment of minorities, is obliged to respect based on international Covenants and Treaties that it has signed (articles 6, 10, 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Treaty of Rome, ratified in 53/1974, article 27 of 2462 law of 21/26.2.97 concerning the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, par. 32 of CSCE/ Kopenhagen Covenant).

In 7/2/2005 the plenary session of the Greek Supreme Court made its decision about the “Xanthi Turkish Union” according to which the plenary session of the Greek Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the members of the union and therefore, recommended its closing down. The decision was based on the conclusion of the Public Prosecutor, mr. Linos, and it is focused on the following points: the Union “seeks quite openly to demonstrate the existence in Greece of a national Turkish minority, while the relevant agreements and treaties acknowledge only the existence on Greek soil of a Muslim religious minority”, “the use of the term Turkish in Greece means the recognition of minorities which are not defined by the Lausane Treaty”, as well as according to article 8 of the union’s founding legislation “it is intended the promotion on Greek soil of the objectives of a foreign state, namely Turkey”.

It seems that the judges of the Greek Supreme Court omitted the fact that this trial is not about the Lausane Treaty and its contents. Lausane Treaty is an international agreement of absolute respect by the minority in Thrace. It is also an instrument of high significance since the quality of minority’s livelihood depends on it. The right that is violated, as well as the right that the members of the Union claim, is clearly defined by the article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, by the article 11 of the Rome Covenant as well as by the article 12 paragraph 1 of the Greek Constitution and has to do with the freedom of association, that is the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association with others.

Moreover, in the case of the associations preventive control could not be done. Nobody could prove or make object of control any supposed or hidden intentions of the founding members of the association. Such a control of hidden intentions could not prove if the activity of the association contradicts and threatens the public order. Consequently, any accuse for illegal action of the association or for any action which threatens the public order is invalid and therefore, unacceptable. In practise, the association proved several times its intentions and its goals. It never assaulted or was accused to assault the public order in its 78-year history till today. Neither mr. Linos, in its conclusion does refer even one activity of the association which could possibly threaten the public order and security.

Not only this, it is also violated the right to self-determination (paragraph 32 CSCE/ Kopenhagen, article 3.1 of the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe, Paris Treaty), a right which the political leadership of the country strongly supports through statements, press releases etc. While the political leadership of the country recognises and accepts the right of individual self-determination, while in Greece there is no law which forbids the exercise of this right, the juridical leadership of the country insists on the non-recognition of this right. The juridical leadership takes decisions based clearly on political criteria. This does fit neither to the role nor to the function of a legal institution, such as the state courts. The point of this trial is the demand of an individual right, like the right to self-determination, which in the case of the establishment of an association could not be exercised if only on a collective basis. We claim the common exercise of an individual right by the members of the minority in Thrace.

The existence of minorities is undoubtedly a real issue and not a legal one. The preconditions of the existence of a minority are not object to state decisions since the existence of minorities is defined through the combination of both objective and subjective criteria. It is primarily an issue of individual choice if someone wants to belong to a minority or not. The fact that the Lausane Treaty, as has truly been said, recognises the minority as religious minority, that is Muslim Minority, does not imply that the Lausane Treaty forbids the use of ethnic identification for the members of the minority. According to this logic, the logic of the Greek Supreme Court, Turkey should also ban the function of associations and institutions of the minority in Istanbul which use ethnic identifications, such as the Balikli Greek Hospital (Balýklý Rum Hastanesi), the Greek Zografeion Lyceum etc., because the Lausane Treaty defines that minority as “non-muslim minorities”. Imagine what kind of implications would bring in case the Greek Orthodox Patriarch (Fener Rum Patriði) was renamed into Non Muslim Patriarch, as the Lausane Treaty indicates.

Moreover, it is unacceptable the fact that while in Thrace various associations which use ethnic identifications in their titles, such as the “Cultural and Educational Association of Armenians in Komotini”, “Association of Orthodox Armenians, Saint Grigorios”, “Lyceum of Greek women in Xanthi” etc., function freely, it is systematically forbidden the establishment of an association which uses the ethnic identification “Turk” or “Turkish” in its tile. I would like to remind that another Association, the “Association of Retired Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace” was also banned in 1970 based on the same logic, as the other associations. Let me note that in 1970 Greece was under dictatorship. As we all know, junta in Greece lasted until 1974 where Greece entered into a political changeover and democracy was reestablished. It is not honorable at all and at the same time it is a shame for our country to apply for the minority in Thrace restrictive measures which existed in older periods and moreover, the policies which are exercised by democratic regimes to be equated to policies of dictatorship regimes towards the minority.

The Greek courts, based on the same logic as in the case of the Xanthi Turkish Union, reject the establishment of another association, the “Cultural Association of Turkish Women of Rodopi Prefecture”. This case was judged by the Fourth Political Section of the Greek Supreme Court on 28/1/2005 and we still wait for the final decision. During this last trial the president of the court openly declared that the cases of the two associations are closely linked to each other. He said that the decision about the case of the second association would not be published before the publication of the decision of the plenary session of the Supreme Court for the case of the “Xanthi Turkish Union”. The decision for the case of the Xanthi Turkish Union is made. Could the juridical leadership of our country explain to us for which reason did it wait the decision of the plenary session for the Xanthi Turkish Union in order to made its decision for a separate case? Since when does the Greek Supreme Court make decisions and on which legal basis does is take in common decisions about two different cases? The case of the Xanthi Turkish Union is about the dissolution of an association, which the second case is about the establishment of an association.

In the case of the Cultural Association of Turkish Women the overall case is solely based on the right of self-determination of the members of the association. If we only think of the behaviour of the president of the Fourth Political Section of the Supreme Court during the trial we could only conclude that the criteria of the decisions for the associations could not be considered as legal or legally based. During the trial the judge asked the lawyer of the association “What does it mean for you the term Turk?” and “How many Greeks have been left in Istanbul?”. For all the above reasons, we ask the Greek political leadership to intervene and to take a clear and open position in relation to the issue of the minority associations. Moreover, we ask from the Greek political leadership to recognise and apply without restrictions the right to self-determination and the right to the establishment of associations in order the issue of the associations, which deplores the members of the minority in Thrace for so many years and made them loose their trust towards the Greek state, to be finally solved. In Thrace the so widely used multiculturalism would never be applied in practice, in case associations of Amrenians, of Greeks etc. function free but the members of the minority do not have the right to express and develop cultural activity through similar institutions, like the associations.

The minority after the decision of the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal of the members of the Association, decided to bring the case to the European Court of Human Rights in spite of its good will not to be addressed to institutions outside Greece, having yet no other option since it exhausted all domestic remedies. The President of the European Court of Human Rights, mr. L. Wildhaber, as well as the vice president, mr. Chr. Rozakis, during an event which was organised in October 2003 by the Athens Lawyers Association for the celebration of the 50 years of the application of the European Convention of Human Rights, they replied to questions of the audience. They said “the clear position of the European Court of Human Rights is that it does not protect minorities, but the right of each minority citizen to have exactly the same rights as anyone else, in relation to the freedom of expression, to believe and to associate with others etc.” This is the freedom that we claim as members of a minority and this freedom is legally defined by international treaties and covenants, such as the Lausane Treaty (articles 39 and 40) according to which the minority in Thrace as well as the minority in Istanbul will enjoy legally and realistically the same protection and the same guarantees as the rest citizens of the Greek and Turkish states correspondingly, and the Greek constitution (article 4 paragraph 1, article 5 paragraph 2).

Through this letter we would like to express our positions in relation to the juridical battle of the two minority associations. These are not exclusively my positions but positions which I share with the minority that I represent to the Greek Parliament as the only minority member of parliament. Moreover, I would like to address you the intense anxiety and concern about the outcome of the cases of the associations, as well as I would like to express my trust towards the Greek state and the hope of the whole minority in Thrace that the Greek state will respect the right to freedom of association for the minority associations which use ethnic identifications. As it is clear through our positions above, the minority does not claim anything more than the application of the international treaties and covenants that Greece signed and ratified, the application of the Greek legal system, as well as the attribution of basic human rights equally for all the Greek citizens. We invite the political leadership of the country to support and recognise the associations of the minority in Thrace.

With honour,
Ilhan Ahmet


Notification

1. Leader of the Opposition Party, President of Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), Mr. George Papandreou
2. General Secretary of the Greek Communist Party (KKE), Mrs. Aleka Papariga
3. President of Sinaspismos Political Party, Mr. Alekos Alavanos
4. Minister of Interior, Public administration and Decentralization, Mr. Prokopis Pavlopoulos
5. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Petros Moliviatis
6. Minister of Justice, Mr. Anastasios Papaligouras
7. General Secretary of the Periphery of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Mr. Mihalis Aggelopoulos
8. Rodopi Prefect, Mr. Aris Giannakidis
9. Xanthi Prefect, Mr. George Pavlidis
10. Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles
11. President of the Group of European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in the European Parliament, Mr. Herr Pettering Hans-Gert
12. President of the Socialists’ Group in the European Parliament, Mr. Schulz Martin
13. President of the Group of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, Mr. Watson Graham
14. Co-presidents of the Groups of Greens/ European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, Mr. Cohn-Bendit Daniel Marc and Mrs. Frasoni Monica
15. President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr. Luzius Wildhaber
16. High Commissioner of Human Rights, UN, Ms. Louise Arbour
17. Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE)
18. European Ombudsman, Mr. Nikiforos Diamantouros
19. Greek Ombudsman, Mr. George Kaminis
20. National Commission for Human Rights (NCHM)