There is no reference in paragraph 6 of your present report to your latest report on the mission of good offices dated 28 May 2004 (S/2004/437). We believe it will play into the hands of the Greek Cypriot side to portray Your Excellency as distancing yourself from your report of 28 May 2004 given the fact that two references had been made to the said report in your previous report on UNFICYP. Moreover, stressing this report in connection with your good offices mission was particularly important as your references were previously overlooked by the Security Council. Nevertheless, it is most astonishing that the Security Council repeated its unbecoming reference to Resolution 1251(1999). We find it difficult to understand as to why the Security Council insists on emphasizing a past resolution while disregarding your report of 28 May 2004 which incorporated important observations on both the negotiating process and the referenda results on your comprehensive settlement plan on Cyprus. This approach does not contribute to the sound assessment of the recent developments and the shaping of future efforts towards a settlement.

Paragraph 7 of your report contains developments pertaining to the accession process of Turkey to the European Union. I should stress that the importance of including such information in a technical report on the operations of UNFICYP eludes us. On the other hand, information of significant relevance is excluded in paragraph 9 which deals with the issue of missing persons. The fact that we, as the Turkish Cypriot side, have made two written representatives to the UN in order to help bring about the full implementation of the provisions pertaining to the 1981 terms of reference of the Committee on Missing Persons should have been included in the said paragraph.

It needs to be noted that the joint exercises by the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish forces to which reference is made in paragraph 11 of your report is purely a training exercise which has been taking place for the past thirty years on a regular basis. The structure and the wording of the said paragraph are most unbecoming as it culminates in the undue leveling of a standard activity with the shooting of a Turkish Cypriot soldier by a member of the Greek Cypriot National Guard. Moreover, the Turkish Cypriot soldier involved is erroneously presented to be a member of the Turkish forces. The inappropriate downgrading of the shooting incident which carried serious provocative potential does not encourage strict measures aimed at preventing future occurrences. The restraint displayed by the Turkish Cypriot side was the main factor preventing the escalation of tension between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot soldiers stationed in close vicinity along the buffer-zone.

We welcome the recording of our lifting the restrictions on the UNFICYP in both paragraph 15 of your report and in Resolution 1604. We noted with disappointment, however, that the inappropriate practice of referring to the village of Akyar has continued both in your report and the Security Council resolution. I wish to reiterate, therefore, that the village of Akyar has no connection to the buffer zone and does not fall within the scope of the mission of the United Nations peace-keeping Force in Cyprus. It should also be noted that the UNFICYP personnel in Cyprus agreed upon visiting the area that there is no tangible measure that can be taken on the ground regarding the situation in Akyar following the commencement of mutual crossings in the island. It is most becoming, therefore, that this issue is kept on the agenda.

The terminology in paragraph 21 falls short of reflecting the preventive Greek Cypriot attitude regarding the crossing of commercial vehicles from North to South Cyprus. The relevant wording gives the wrong impression that the buses and taxis registered in the North are allowed to cross to South Cyprus on certain conditions. The truth of the matter is that the Greek Cypriot administration adopted a most insincere practice in this regard. While it argues that there are no restrictions on the crossing of commercial vehicles, its refusal to accept driving licenses issued in North Cyprus stands as an effective impeding measure. It should have been clearly stated in the said paragraph that the Greek Cypriot side is hampering the crossing of commercial vehicles registered in the North to South on “technical grounds”.

It is regrettable that substantive information is missing in paragraphs 23 and 24. It is well known that the Turkish Cypriot side repeatedly called for cooperation on the murder of three Turkish Cypriots living in South Cyprus. It is also no secret that the Greek Cypriot authorities refused to share any information from the first day of investigations on this serious crime. Nevertheless, Turkish Cypriot police forces arrested eight suspects on credible grounds but were in need of forensic evidence for a solid case against the suspects. Despite our numerous representatives and the good offices of UNFICYP, the Greek Cypriot authorities refused to handover the necessary evidence on purely political grounds. The maximum pre-trial detention period was thus exhausted and our relevant authorities had no choice but to release the murder suspects. We regard the omitting of the foregoing facts as a serious shortcoming of paragraph 23.

The lack of official contacts and cooperation on humanitarian issues between the two sides are presented in a misleading manner in the afore-mentioned paragraphs. As the Turkish Cypriot side, we have repeatedly expressed our readiness to establish contacts at all levels and to cooperate on humanitarian issues with the Greek Cypriot side. We strongly believe that neither the ongoing political dispute nor the position of the parties should stand in the way of establishing cooperative relations to the benefit of both communities. The numerous calls of our President, H.E. Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat to commence unofficial contacts with a view to discussing humanitarian and daily affairs have been widely reported, including in the Greek Cypriot press. In fact, his readiness in this regard has also been conveyed to the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Papadopoulos, through the good offices of UNFICYP. Unfortunately, the Greek Cypriot side failed to respond positively to our constructive initiatives. While we appreciate the inclusion of this all-important subject in your present report, we deem it a substantive oversight that the Turkish Cypriot willingness to establish contacts with the Greek Cypriot side was not mentioned in the relevant paragraphs.

I wish to refer, before I conclude, to the apparent technical error in paragraph 21. the Turkish Cypriot school to which reference is made within the context of the Greek Cypriot pledge that it would be opened in South Cyprus is, in fact, an elementary school and not “a Turkish secondary school” as printed in the said paragraph.