The main reason why the CMP has not been able to complete its mission so far is the refusal of the Greek Cypriot side to abide strictly by its agreed Terms of Reference since it was set up in 1981 pursuant to UN Resolutions of 1977 and 1978 and subsequent negotiations between the two sides, conducted under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General and with the technical assistance of the ICRC.

It has become obvious over the years that the Greek Cypriot side’s negative stand in this respect is the result of their policy to keep the issue unresolved and alive in order to try to exploit it against Turkey in the international arena as well as in recourses to the European Court of Human Rights.

The CMP had encountered difficulties at its inception over differences between the two sides on procedural matters and it went into a recess lasting nearly 3 years. It was due to President Denktaþ’s written proposals submitted on 2 June 1984 that the deadlock was broken and the Committee resumed its work in March 1984.

Between 1984 and 1994 the Greek Cypriot side had submitted to the CMP only 382 of its cases out of a total of 1619, later reduced to 1493, the full list being kept secret until 1995. In contrast, the Turkish Cypriot side submitted 493 cases out of a total of 500. Despite considerable investigations none of these cases could be concluded because of the insistence of the Greek Cypriot side on the prior tracing of physical remains, and their identification. There is no such requirement in the Terms of Reference, Article 13 of which provides as follows:

"The Committee will use its best efforts to draw up comprehensive lists of missing persons of both communities, specifying as appropriate whether they are alive or dead and, in the latter case, approximate time of the deaths."

It is clear that the CMP could and should have concluded all the cases which had been investigated on sufficient evidence, direct or indirect, without necessarily the discovery of remains. This interpretation has been endorsed by the legal advisers in the UN Secretary-General’s Office in New York as well as in the ICRC. That, that it is so is evident from the fact that Article 13 requires only that with regard to findings of death "appropriate time of the deaths" be stated.

One other important article of the Terms of Reference is Article 11, which states:

"The Committee will not attempt to attribute responsibility for the deaths of any missing persons or make findings as to the cause of such deaths."

Despite this clear provision, there are ample indications that the Greek Cypriot side is after such information. During a meeting of the CMP on the subject of the nature of evidence sought, the Greek Cypriot representative had stated:

"What we want to know is whether the death was legal or not."

This is obviously irrelevant in so far as Article 11 excludes findings as to the cause of death.

The following statements made by the three members of the CMP during its meeting on 19 October 1989 indicate very clearly the main cause of the impasse in which the CMP was placed

Turkish Cypriot Member:

Greek Cypriot Member:

Third Member:

The fact that during 10 years from 1984 to 1994 the Greek Cypriot side submitted 382 case files only for investigation, out of a total of 1619 (later reduced to 1493) claimed to be missing but kept secret until a few years ago, provides prima facie evidence of that side’s real intentions. One other revealing information is the following statement made by the former Greek Cypriot Member of the CMP, just before he relinquished his position in 1985.

The Greek Cypriot side declined to submit new cases arguing that the CMP was not effective. The truth is otherwise. As from 1990 the UN Secretary-General started to take a more active interest in the work of the CMP and began gradually to press both sides to submit all their cases to the CMP.

Continued pressure from the Secretary-General yielded result in that, even though it took the Greek Cypriot side 5 more years to "prepare" the files towards the end of 1995, it submitted to the CMP 1283 case files of which about 898 were classified as soldiers. This figure does not include paramilitaries.

The total number of files eventually submitted was 1493, 126 cases having been deleted from the original list of 1619.

On 5 March 1996, then the Third Member Ambassador Paul Wurth, relinquished his office. On the same day the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Cyprus, Mr. Gustave Feissel made the following significant statement:

"No one has ever given the UN CMP any information, evidence, anything at all, which would suggest that anybody is still alive somewhere."

This was followed in the same year, on 4.4.1996 and 4.12.1996, by the letters of the Secretary-General to the leaders of both sides suggesting 5 Modalities which if implemented would in his opinion enable the CMP to complete its task at last.

The Turkish Cypriot side accepted the proposals. The Greek Cypriot side also accepted them but with some reservations which in the end proved fatal.

Implementation was commenced at sub-committee level and continued, albeit with obvious reluctance on the part of the Greek Cypriot side, until September 1997 when, the Greek Cypriot side asked the work of the CMP to be recessed due to Mr. Clerides’s then Presidential elections scheduled for February 1998.

It never resumed serious work again. The special agreement between the two leaders on 31 July 1997 raised hopes of a vigorous reactivation of the CMP and led to the appointment by the Secretary-General of Ambassador Jean-Pierre Ritter, nominated by the ICRC, as the new Third Member on 15 June 1998. Regretfully, his sincere and dedicated efforts to reactivate the CMP within its agreed Term of Reference, Procedural Rules, Guidelines for Investigations, Criteria and the UN Secretary-General’s 4.4.1996 and 4.12.1996 proposals culminating in his 30.9.1998 proposals proved unfruitful because his well considered report was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side. The Greek Cypriot side would not agree to allow the CMP to resume its work on the basis originally agreed and continued to insist on tracing of burial places and recovery of remains for DNA identification. The special agreement of 31.7.1997 which aimed at securing the cooperation of the Greek Cypriot side again failed to secure the desired result because they refuse to divulge the identities and secret burial places of Greek Cypriots who had been killed during the intra Greek Cypriot civil war ( Coup 15-20.7.1974). Without first dealing with this aspect of the problem, it would not be possible to ascertain the missing relating to the Coup period and those relating to the post 20 July 1974 events.

The last attempt by the UN Secretary-General to secure the resumption of its work by the CMP was his letter of 24.5.2000 addressed to the two leaders asking them to:

Even though the Turkish Cypriot side responded positively to the Secretary-General’s letter on 21.6.2000 the Greek Cypriot side did not and the stalemate continues.

A clear indirect admission of Greek Cypriot responsibility for the continued stalemate in the work of the CMP came in the form of a report which appeared in Phileleftheros newspaper dated 26.1.2001 and according to which Mr. Yannakis Kassoulides, the Foreign Minister of the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus made the following statement to the Refugees and Enclaved Committee of their House of Representatives:

"We refuse to accept the UN Secretary-General’s proposals (the five Modalities reiterated in the 24.5.2000 letter) because they provide Denktaþ with a window of opportunity to close the issue of missing persons”.

It should be noted that this statement by Mr. Kassouilides was made in relation to the constructive proposals made by the Secretary-General of the UN himself, and not by President Denktaþ.