Lobbying Arm for the Turkish Government

I have received this email from the Cyprus Action Network of America and will post it verbatim:


cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org
reply-to cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org

date Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM
subject WASHINGTON POST COVERS TURKISH EMBASSY CORRUPTION AND MANIPULATION


WASHINGTON POST COVERS TURKISH EMBASSY CORRUPTION AND MANIPULATION
For Immediate Release: July 7, 2008

Contact: Nikolaos Taneris, New York, Tel. 1-917-699-9935


NEW YORK—The Washington Post reported in its Saturday edition on the ongoing corruption and manipulation of American scholarship by the Turkish government, Susan Kinzie’s article “Board Members Resign to Protest Chair’s Ousting Leader in Georgetown-Based Agency Encouraged Scholars to Research Mass Killing of Armenians” details the most recent scandal surrounding the ITS (Institute of Turkish Studies) founded with a $3 million dollar grant paid directly by the Turkish government.

Beginning in the 1980s, in response to the Congressional arms embargo of the 1970s following Turkey’s criminal military invasion of Cyprus, the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC, under the leadership of then Turkish Ambassador Sukru Elekdag, initiated a far flung campaign in America to whitewash Turkish criminal history. The practically non-existent ,apathetic community of Turks in America, was reorganized with the help of millions of dollars of funding-- buying high priced advisors to set up such Cyprus Invasion denying entities as the Washington DC-Based “American Friends of Turkey” the ATC (American Turkish Council) recently reorganized under the new name “Turkish Coalition of America” ,the ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations) and the New York-New Jersey-Based FTAA (Federation of Turkish American Associations) whose job was to organize a “Turkish-American” parade to counter the decades long parade by Greek-Americans on New York’s Fifth Avenue.

The Parade like the funding of Turkish ‘academic’ institutes was set up for the dual purposes of Genocide denial and Cyprus Invasion denial. According to the Turkish Daily News ( May 21, 2007) “In the 1980s the parade was a platform where Turkish Americans tried to draw the attention of American public to some of Turkey's international conflicts such as those with Armenia and Greek Cyprus…The first official Turkish Day Parade in the city was held on April 23 1980. Those who attended that parade remember vividly that there were only two flags in the 150 people cortege. The FTAA could not get a permit for the parade in 1981 either. In 1982 however, with support from Ankara FTAA was able to get the permit to organize first official Turkish Day Parade. It was decided that the parade would take place on the weekend that is closest to May 19th,” (NOTE: May 19th is the day in 1919 that Turk leader Mustafa Kemal landed in Pontus to perpetrate the Pontian Genocide, In Turkey this is celebrated as “Turkish liberation day”)

Greek-American scholar Speros Vryonis wrote the first detailed academic study of Turkish government manipulation of American scholarship in his monumental work “The Turkish State and History: Clio Meets the Grey Wolf.” Vryonis documents the ITS (Institute of Turkish Studies) attempt to manipulate American scholarship, and in turn US public opinion, with the granting of monies to Genocide deniers, activities that question the objectivity of this group and its role in essentially lobbying on behalf of the Turkish Embassy.

Turkey has also bankrolled the establishment of endowed Chairs of Turkish Studies at various American universities, at least one such Chair, the endowed Chair of Turkish Studies at Portland State University , paid for directly by funding from the Turkish Embassy, is involved in actively producing Cyprus Invasion denial literature, and is home to the “Cyprus Peace Initiative”. The “Cyprus Peace Initiative” actively lobbied for the discredited, so-called Annan Plan, which made provisions that call for Turkish military to remain and intervene over all of Cyprus.

The Washington Post article follows on the heels of a long list of credible news outlets that have reported on Turkey’s false historical revisionism and the Turkish Embassy’s morally bankrupt attempts to present a distorted image of Turkey’s true face to the American public.


(Article is reproduced for Fair Use and Educational Purposes)


Board Members Resign to Protest Chair's Ousting
Leader in Georgetown-Based Agency Encouraged Scholars to Research Mass Killing of Armenians

By Susan Kinzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 5, 2008; B05



The issue that has roiled U.S.-Turkish relations in recent months -- how to characterize the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 -- has set off a dispute over politics and academic freedom at an institute housed at Georgetown University.

Several board members of the Institute of Turkish Studies have resigned this summer, protesting the ouster of a board chairman who wrote that scholars should research, rather than avoid, what he characterized as an Armenian genocide.

Within weeks of writing about the matter in late 2006, Binghamton University professor Donald Quataert resigned from the board of governors, saying the Turkish ambassador to the United States told him he had angered some political leaders in Ankara and that they had threatened to revoke the institute's funding.

After a prominent association of Middle Eastern scholars learned about it, they wrote a letter in May to the institute, the Turkish prime minister and other leaders asking that Quataert be reinstated and money for the institute be put in an irrevocable trust to avoid political influence.

The ambassador of the Republic of Turkey, H.E. Nabi Sensoy, denied that he had any role in Quataert's resignation. In a written statement, he said that claims that he urged Quataert to leave are unfounded and misleading.

The dispute shows the tensions between money and scholarship, and the impact language can have on historical understanding.

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I. Armenians and Turks bitterly disagree over whether it was a campaign of genocide, or a civil war in which many Turks were also killed.

In the fall, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) championed a bill that would characterize the events of 1915 to 1917 as genocide, the Bush administration fought it and several former defense secretaries warned that Turkish leaders would limit U.S. access to a military base needed for the war in Iraq.

The Turkish studies institute, founded in 1983, is independent from Georgetown University, but Executive Director David Cuthell teaches a course there in exchange for space on campus.

Julie Green Bataille, a university spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail, "we will review this matter consistent with the importance of academic freedom and the fact that the institute is independently funded and governed."

The institute's funding, a $3 million grant, is entirely from Turkey.

A few years ago, Quataert said, members of the board checked on what they thought was an irrevocable blind trust "and to our surprise it turned out to be a gift that could be revoked by the Turkish government."

Quataert, a professor of history, said the institute has funded good scholarship without political influence. The selection of which studies to support is done by a committee of academics on the associate board, he said, and approved by the board, which includes business and political leaders. Never once, he said, did he think a grant application was judged on anything other than its academic merits.

He also noted that during his time there, no one applied for grants that would have been controversial in Turkey. Asked if any of the research characterized the events as genocide, Cuthell said, "My gut is no. It's that third rail."

Roger Smith, professor emeritus of government at the College of William and Mary, questioned whether the nonprofit institute deserves its tax-exempt status if there is political influence -- and whether it is an undeclared lobbying arm for the Turkish government.

Cuthell said none of the institute's critics ever bothered to check the truth of Quataert's account with the institute: It does not lobby, Cuthell said, and "the allegations of academic freedom simply don't hold up."

The controversy began quietly in late 2006 with a review of historian Donald Bloxham's book, "The Great Game of Genocide." Quataert wrote that the slaughter of Armenians has been the elephant in the room of Ottoman studies. Despite his belief that the term "genocide" had become a distraction, he said the events met the United Nations definition of the word.

He sent a letter of resignation to members of the institute in December 2006, and one board member resigned.

But in the fall, around the same time that Congress was debating the Armenian question, Quataert was asked to speak at a conference about what had happened at the institute. He told members of the Middle Eastern Studies Association that the ambassador told him he must issue a retraction of his book review or step down -- or put funding for the institute in jeopardy.

His colleagues were shocked, said Laurie Brand, director of the school of international relations at the University of Southern California.

Ambassador Sensoy, who is honorary chairman of the institute's board, said in a statement this week, "Neither the Turkish Government nor I have ever placed any pressure upon the ITS, for such interference would have violated the principle of the academic freedom, which we uphold the most. The Turkish Government and I will be the first to defend ITS from any such pressure."

Since the May 27 letter from the scholars association was sent, several associate and full members of the board have left. Marcie Patton, Resat Kasaba and Kemal Silay resigned; Fatma Muge Gocek said she would resign, and Birol Yesilada said his primary reason for stepping down at this time is his health, but that he is concerned about the conflicting accounts of what had happened. "It's a very difficult line that scholars walk," Patton said, "especially post-9/11, especially because of the Iraq war."


========================
Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA)
2578 Broadway #132
New York, NY 10025
New York: Tel. 917-699-9935
Email: cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org
www.cyprusactionnetwork.org
========================


The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is a grass-roots, not-for-profit movement created to support genuine self-determination and human rights for the people of Cyprus.

ECHR Finds Turkey Guilty (Yet Again)

(The following article is reproduced for fair use and educational purposes)


The Online Newspaper of Romiossini:

European Court today: Turkey is guilty!


Brussels, 24/06/08:- Turkey was today found guilty in the European Court of Human Rights, in two cases of young Greek Cypriots who were murdered in 1996.

1. Anastasios Isaak was lynched by a mob of Turkish soldiers and Turkish Cypriot "policemen" and other Turkish and Turkish Cypriot extremists belonging to a nationalist group called "Grey Wolves". It happened in the buffer zone separating the turkish army occupied northern part of Cyprus from the southern part of the island.

2. Solomos Solomou was shot dead at short range, by Turkish soldiers when he attempted to climb up a Turkish flag pole in the buffer zone.

The Court unanimously ruled that Ankara is guilty of violating Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the killing of Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou.

The Court also ruled that Turkey is guilty of violating Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou were killed.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 80,000 euro to Anastasios Isaak’s widow for pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 35,000 euro each to Anastasios Isaak’s widow, his parents, and to Solomos Solomou’s father, and also 15,000 euro to each of Anastasios Isaak’s and Solomos Solomou’s siblings. The applicants in both cases were also awarded 12,000 for costs and expenses.

The two applications were filed to the Court by the families of Tasos Isaak and Solomou Solomou, both of whom were murdered by Turkish or Turkish Cypriots during demonstrations in 1996.

Click here for the judgment in the case of:
ISAAK v. TURKEY (Application no. 44587/98)
SOLOMOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 36832/97)

Christofias declared Cyprus's sixth President

Watch the video below of jubilant Demetris Christofias’ supporters who flocked to Nicosia’s Eleftheria Stadium to see their leader declared President of the Republic Of Cyprus:

Polls closed in Cyprus and the results...

31.8% reporting

Christofias 53.90%
Kasoulides 46.10%

The results so far bode well for Mr. Christofias who looks increasingly likely that he will be the new President of Cyprus.

Update:

News agencies here in Cyprus call it for Christofias. He is the new President of Cyprus.

Γράμμα στον αγαπητό φίλο Τάσσο

Στα γραφεία του ΔΗΣΥ


Συναγωνιστή Τάσσο,



To έργο που έκανες ήταν μεγάλο...


Δεν υπάρχουν 13 πληγές...


Δεν σου ξέφυγαν 153 σημεία...


Δεν "δουλεύεις" τον κυπριακό λαό...


Και αν είπα κάτι που σε ενόχλησε...


Σπουδαία τα λάχανα.


Tην ίδια ώρα στα γραφεία του ΑΚΕΛ


Σύντροφε Τάσσο,


Το έργο που έκανες ήταν μεγάλο...


Δεν επηρεάστηκες επειδή αποχώρησα από την συγκυβέρνηση...


Δεν σε έχω κατηγορίσει ότι αθέτησες το λόγo σου και ότι δεν με σέβεσε...


Εκανες το πιο σωστό χειρισμό με το Κυπριακό...


Και αν είπα κάτι που σε ενόχλησε...


Bάλε το στις κόκκινες γραμμές.

ECHR Judgment: Varnava and Others v. Turkey

Turkey violated the rights of nine Greek Cypriot nationals who went missing when detained by the Turkish Army during its 1974 invasion of northern Cyprus, Europe's top human rights court ruled Thursday. The seven-judge panel said the case filed against Turkey by the families of 18 people who were originally captured and nine of whom remain missing after they were detained by Turkish forces was justified, and awarded representatives of the nine 4,000 (US$5,872) each in damages to cover legal costs and expenses. The court said it had accepted witness testimony "to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974." The body of one of the nine was found in 2007, but the other eight remain missing.

Below is the judgment in its entirety:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

10.1.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT
VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90).

The Court held:

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of nine of the applicants, who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention concerning the remaining nine applicants, relatives of the nine men who disappeared;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, concerning whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance; and,

· unanimously, that no violation of Article 5 had been established concerning the alleged detention of the nine men.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, by six votes to one, that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and awarded them 4,000 euros (EUR), per application, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicants are or were 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom disappeared after being captured and detained during the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The other applicants (three of whom have since died and been replaced by their heirs) are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.

The applicants are or were: Andreas and his wife Giorghoulla Varnava, who lived in Lymbia; Andreas and his father Loizos Loizides (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Philippos Constantinou and his father Demetris Peyiotis, who lived in Nicosia; Demetris Theocharides and his mother Elli Theocharidou (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Panicos and his mother Chrysoula Charalambous, who lived in Limassol; Eleftherios and his father Christos Thoma (now deceased), who lived in Strovolos; Savvas and his wife Androula Hadjipanteli, who lived in Nicosia; Savvas and his father Georghios Apostolides, who lived in Strovolos; and, Leontis and his wife Yianoulla Sarma, who lived in Limassol. The applicants were born, respectively, in: 1947, 1949, 1954, 1907, 1954, 1929, 1953, 1914, 1955, 1935, 1951, 1921, 1938, 1938, 1955, 1928, 1947 and 1949.

Witnesses have testified to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974; they have been considered missing ever since. A number of the applicant parents also claimed that they had identified their missing sons in photographs published in Greek newspapers showing Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war. The body of the ninth missing man, Savvas Hadjipanteli, was discovered in 2007.

The applicants made the following claims:

Varnava and Sarma

In July and August 1974 Andreas Varnava and Leontis Sarma’s battalions was stationed in the vicinity of Mia Milia to man the Cypriot outposts. On the morning of 14 August 1974, Turkish military forces, supported by tanks and with air cover, launched an attack on the area. Cypriot forces retreated and the surrounding area was captured by the Turkish military forces.

Loizides

In July 1974 Andreas Loizides was serving in a battalion which was moved to the Lapithos area to support Greek Cypriot forces there. The soldiers were split up into various groups and the applicant was in charge of one of those. On 5 August 1974 they were over-powered by Turkish forces and ordered to retreat. Since 6 August 1974 none of the members of his group have seen Mr Loizides.

Constantinos

Mr Constantinos was posted with a section of his battalion to Lapithos. Following a full-scale attack from the Turkish Army on 6 August 1974, the group split up.

Theocharides

At about 04.30 hours on 26 July 1974 Mr Theocharides’ company came under attack from a Turkish paratroops battalion, with 20 tanks, who broke through Greek Cypriot lines, infiltrating the right flank of the applicant’s company. When his company was regrouped, he was missing.

Charalambous

On 24 July 1974 Mr Charalambous came under fire from Turkish soldiers while searching buses in the Koutsoventis Vounos area with two or three other soldiers. He was wounded in the right hand and on the left side of his ribs. After his wounds were cleaned and his gun loaded, he went back. He has not been seen again by his unit.

Thoma

On the morning of 20 July 1974 Eleftherios Thoma was involved in trying to prevent Turkish military forces landing in the area of "Pikro Nero", Kyrenia. At around 12.00 hours on 21 July the Turkish military forces which had landed, supported by tanks and with air cover, attacked Cypriot forces defending the area. The applicant’s battalion was ordered to retreat. After the battalion had been regrouped the applicant was missing.

Hadjipanteli

On 18 August 1974 Mr Hadjipanteli, a bank employee, was taken for questioning by Turkish soldiers. According to the applicants, representatives of the International Red Cross in Cyprus visited Pavlides Garage in the Turkish occupied sector of Nicosia and on 28 August 1974 recorded the names of 20 Greek Cypriots held there, including the applicant.

On 27 August 1974 a group of Turkish Cypriot civilians went to a bank where they emptied two safes and ordered a third to be opened, but they were told that the keys were with the applicant. Subsequently they returned with the keys for that safe, which the applicant always carried with him.

In 2007, in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons (CMP), human remains were exhumed from a mass grave near the Turkish Cypriot village of Galatia in the Karpas area. The remains of Mr Hadjipanteli were identified and several bullets were found in the grave. Mr Hadjipanteli’s medical certificate indicated a bullet wound to his skull, a bullet wound in his right arm and a wound on his right thigh.

The Turkish Government disputed that the applicants had been taken into captivity by the Turkish army during the military action in Cyprus in 1974. They considered that all the alleged "missing persons", except for Mr Hadjipanteli, were military personnel who died in action in July-August 1974. The Government noted that the International Red Cross had visited the Pavlides Garage, where Mr Hadjipanteli had allegedly been held, but his name did not appear in the list of Greek Cypriots held.

The Government of Cyprus submitted that the nine men went missing in areas under the control of the Turkish forces.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The nine applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 January 1990. They were joined by the Commission on 2 July 1991, and declared admissible on 14 April 1998. They were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999.

The Cypriot Government submitted observations on the merits of the case.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Boštjan Zupančič, (Slovenian), President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström, (Swedish),
Alvina Gyulumyan, (Armenian),
Egbert Myjer, (Dutch),
David Thór Björgvinsson, (Icelandic),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, (Monegasque), judges,
Gönül Erönen, (Turkish), ad hoc judge,


and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaints

The applicants relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Decision of the Court

Article 2

The Court noted that the fate of the nine missing men, and whether they had been unlawfully killed, was largely unknown. While Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains had been found very recently, the circumstances surrounding his death remained unclarified. The Court recalled that it was established in its Grand Chamber inter-State case Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94 of 10 May 2001) that the evidence showed that many people who went missing in 1974 were detained either by Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot forces. Their detention occurred at a time when the conduct of military operations was accompanied by arrests and killings on a large scale which was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The clear indications of the climate of risk and fear at the time, and of the real dangers to which detainees were exposed, was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The nine missing men in the applicants’ case disappeared against that same background. The Court noted that the eight combatants were last seen in areas surrounded or about to be overrun by Turkish forces, one of them, Panicos Charalambous, in a wounded condition. Statements from several witnesses attested to seeing Mr Hadjipanteli being taken away by Turkish-Cypriot fighters. Given previous findings and the circumstances of the disappearances at a time and at locations which were, or very shortly thereafter were, under the control of Turkish forces or those acting under their aegis, the Court considered that an obligation arose for Turkey to account for their fate.

While it might be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants had nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State, the Court considered that the situation in the applicants’ case was different. A zone of international conflict where two armies were engaged in acts of war was per se life-threatening for those present. Circumstances would frequently be such that the events in question lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the military forces in the field, and it would not be realistic to expect applicants to provide more than minimal information placing their relative in the area at risk. International treaties imposed obligations on combatant States as regards the care of wounded, prisoners of war and civilians; Article 2 certainly extended so far as to require States which had ratified the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities. Disappearances in such circumstances were therefore protected by Article 2.

The Court recalled its previous finding that, whatever its humanitarian usefulness, the CMP did not provide procedures sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations.

While it was true that the remains of Savvas Hadjipanteli had recently been discovered, that did not demonstrate that the CMP had been able to take any meaningful investigative steps beyond the belated location and identification of remains. Nor, given the location of Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains in an area under the control of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus3” after a lapse of some 32 years, had that event displaced the Turkish Government’s accountability for the investigative process during the intervening period.

The Court concluded that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of the nine men who went missing in 1974.

Article 3

The Court recalled, in view of the circumstances in which their family members disappeared following a military intervention during which many persons were killed or taken prisoner and where the area was subsequently sealed off and became inaccessible to the relatives, they must undoubtedly have suffered most painful uncertainty and anxiety. Furthermore, their mental anguish did not vanish with the passing of time.

The Court observed that the Turkish authorities had failed to undertake any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the missing persons. In the absence of any information about their fate, the relatives of those who went missing during the events of July and August 1974 were condemned to live in a prolonged state of acute anxiety which could not be said to have been erased with the passage of time. The Court recalled that the military operation resulted in a considerable loss of life, large-scale arrests and detentions and enforced separation of families. The overall context had still to be vivid in the minds of the relatives of persons whose fate has never been accounted for by the authorities. They endured the agony of not knowing whether family members were killed in the conflict or were still in detention or, if detained, had since died. The fact that a very substantial number of Greek Cypriots had to seek refuge in the south coupled with the continuing division of Cyprus had to be considered to constitute very serious obstacles to their quest for information. The provision of such information was the responsibility of the Turkish authorities.

The silence of the Turkish authorities, in the face of the real concerns of the relatives of the nine missing men, attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court therefore concluded that, during the period under consideration, there had been a continuing violation of Article 3.

Article 5

The Court found no violation of Article 5 concerning the alleged detention of the nine missing men as it had not been established that, during the period under consideration in the applicants’ case, they were actually being detained by the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot authorities.

However, there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 because the Turkish authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance.

Articles 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14

The Court did not consider it necessary to examine further the applicants’ other complaints.

Ad hoc judge Gönül Erönen expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).