Turkey’s policies adversely affect Turkish Cypriots as well, by undermining their identity, restricting their freedoms, and depriving them of the full enjoyment of their rights as Cypriot and European citizens, Nicosia said, rejecting at the same time ‘unfounded allegations’ advanced by Trkeu during the Item 2 General Debate at the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council.
Furthermore, Cyprus argued that ‘the international community must ensure that all Cypriots are afforded the same level of protection as in other situations of foreign military aggression and occupation’, while reaffirming its ‘steadfast commitment to a strong and credible multilateral human rights architecture, with the United Nations and its mechanisms at its core’.
In a Note Verbale dated 20 April 2026, addressed to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Permanent Mission of Cyprus requested the circulation of its response as a document of the sixty-first session of the Human Rights Council. Cyprus said it ‘fully supports the OHCHR’s role in promoting human rights, accountability, and the rule of law globally’.
Cyprus stressed that, ‘at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions,’ both the Human Rights Council and the OHCHR have ‘an important role to play in promoting and protecting human rights.’ In this context, Nicosia said that it remained ‘essential not to lose sight of the situation in Cyprus,’ referring in particular to ‘the ongoing violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law’ which, it noted, are ‘the direct result of Trkiye’s continued military occupation of one-third of the territory of a sovereign UN Member State, the Republic of Cyprus’.
Cyprus argued that ‘the international community must ensure that all Cypriots are afforded the same level of protection as in other situations of foreign military aggression and occupation’. It further warned that ‘the credibility of international law and the UN system would be seriously undermined’ if ‘aggressor states such as Turkey’ were allowed ‘to invoke the passage of time to deflect accountability and diminish the imperative to address these violations’.
Referring to the annual report of the OHCHR on the question of human rights in Cyprus, the statement said the report ‘highlights key aspects of the continuing violations stemming from the 1974 Turkish invasion and the ongoing military occupation of the northern part of the island’.
Cyprus ‘categorically rejected’ Turkey’s allegations, as well as Ankara’s ‘persistent promotion of a secessionist entity condemned by the UN Security Council.’ According to the Cypriot response, these actions amount to ‘an attempt to divert attention from Trkiye’s responsibility for the ongoing human rights violations in Cyprus’.
The statement also rejected Turkey’s position regarding intervention in Cyprus, saying that ‘Turkey’s claim to a unilateral right to invade and occupy Cyprus is untenable’. Cyprus said such a claim ‘runs counter to both reason and the fundamental principles of the UN Charter’ and is ‘unequivocally rejected’.
Cyprus described the 1974 Turkish invasion of the island as ‘an act of aggression and a clear violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the Treaty of Guarantee’. It added that the invasion, the occupation and the secessionist actions had been ‘repeatedly condemned by the United Nations,’ including through General Assembly resolution 37/253 and Security Council resolutions 541 and 550.
It is mentioned that the ‘unlawful military occupation of the northern part of Cyprus has affected all Cypriots.’ Beyond ‘the displacement of nearly one-third of the Greek Cypriot population,’ the statement referred to ‘the ongoing repression of the enclaved population’ and to what it called ‘a systematic policy of demographic and cultural alteration’. It said this included ‘the transfer of settlers’ and ‘the destruction of cultural and religious heritage’.
The Cypriot response also said Turkey’s policies ‘adversely affect Turkish Cypriots’ by ‘undermining their identity, restricting their freedoms, and depriving them of the full enjoyment of their rights as Cypriot and European citizens.’ It accused Turkey of keeping Turkish Cypriots ‘isolated’ and of effectively holding them ‘hostage to its pursuit of recognition for the illegal secessionist entity established in the occupied territory’.
Cyprus further stated that Turkey’s actions aim at ‘undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus’. It also referred to ‘the continued transfer of military equipment’ and ‘the establishment of military infrastructure in the occupied areas,’ which it said take place ‘under the direction and control of the Turkish military headquarters in Turkey’.
Concluding its response, Cyprus said that Turkey ‘must withdraw its occupying troops from Cyprus,’ ‘abandon its ‘two-state’ secessionist policy,’ and ‘enable the reunification of the island and its people’. It also called on Turkey to ‘comply fully with its obligations under international law’ and to ‘bring an end to the ongoing violations of the rights of all Cypriots’.