A/HRC/16/21 of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots”28. As the applicants had not made use of this mechanism, their complaints under article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the ECHR were rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies29. 21. The Court stressed that notwithstanding the fact that the IPC was recognized as a domestic remedy for cases involving Greek Cypriot properties in the north, its decision in this case was not to be interpreted as an obligation to make use of the IPC; the claimants could choose to await a political solution. However, if applicants wished to lodge an application before the Court, its admissibility would be decided in line with the present principles30. 22. The CoE CMD is currently assessing the consequences of the Demopoulos decision on the supervision of Loizidou v. Turkey (1996)31 , Cyprus v. Turkey (2001), Demades v. Turkey (2003) 32, Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (2006)33 and other individual cases concerning property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots34. 23. In the Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey case the CoE CMD at its March 2010 session adopted an interim resolution strongly urging Turkey to pay without any further delay the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court’s judgment of 7 December 2006, as well as the default interest due35. 24. In the reporting period CoE CMD also examined the question of the property rights of enclaved persons in relation to the Cyprus v. Turkey case (2001). Following the Turkish authorities’ timely submission of the legislative texts and a related decision relevant for the examination, the delegation of the Republic of Cyprus on 21 May 2010 provided written 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 applicants as compensation. In addition, it has ruled for exchange and compensation in two cases, for restitution in one case and for restitution and compensation in five cases. In one case it has delivered a decision for restitution after the settlement of the Cyprus problem, and in one case it has ruled for partial restitution. Source: IPC, Monthly Bulletin (November 2010), http://www.northcyprusipc.org. Grand Chamber Demopoulos and others v. Turkey Decision (46113/92), 1 March 2010, para. 127. The applicant property owners’ complaints of an ongoing interference with their right to respect for their homes (article 8) also failed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as they had not been brought before the IPC (ibid., para. 133). Grand Chamber Demopoulos and others v. Turkey Decision (46113/92), 1 March 2010, para. 128. Following the Demopoulos decision, the Court declared several applications concerning alleged violations of property rights in northern Cyprus inadmissible for the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, e.g. Economides and others v. Turkey Decision (68110/01), Stylianou v. Turkey Decision (33574/02), Eleftheriades and others v. Turkey Decision (3882/02, 3883/02, 3887/02, 3884/02, 3896/02). In Loizidou v. Turkey (15318/89), the Court ruled that the applicant remained the legal owner of her property situated in the north, despite having lost control thereof due to lack of access. The case of Demades v. Turkey (16219/90) concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property located in the northern part of Cyprus, insofar as he has been denied access to it, and control, use and enjoyment of it since 1974. The case Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home (situated in Famagusta) due to the denial since 1974 of access to her property situated in the northern part of Cyprus and consequent loss of control thereof. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers’ Deputies Decisions adopted at the 1092nd meeting, 14-15 September 2010, on Cyprus v. Turkey, Loizidou v. Turkey and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey; Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies Decisions adopted at the 1086th meeting, 1-3 June 2010, on Demades v. Turkey. Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)33 in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. 7