A/HRC/10/37 page 5 10. Regarding the Cyprus v. Turkey (2001) case, the Committee further noted with satisfaction that according to the explanations given by the Turkish authorities, the restrictions regarding the property rights of the Greek Cypriots departing definitively from the northern part of Cyprus, as well as the inheritance rights of persons living in the southern part in respect of property of deceased Greek Cypriots in the northern part, had been limited. In particular, the Turkish authorities have indicated that the obligation for heirs to start the procedure for administration of their estates situated in the north within a time limit of a year from the date of the death of their relative has been abolished.14 11. In the case of Loizidou v Turkey (1996), where the Court ruled that the applicant remained the legal owner of her property situated in the north of Cyprus, despite having lost control thereof due to lack of access, the Committee of Ministers noted that a first reading of the additional information provided by the Turkish authorities about the offer made to the applicant with regard to her property showed that this offer is in compliance with “law No. 67/2005 for the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property”. This law established a compensation and restitution mechanism in the northern part of Cyprus following the judgement of the European Court of 22 December 2005 in the case of Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey. Recalling that all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this mechanism had not been addressed in detail by the European Court so far, the Committee decided to resume consideration of this case at the latest at its June 2009 meeting.15 12. As for the Orams v. Apostolides case, which was referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on 13 September 2007, both parties have presented their cases and are now awaiting the judgement of the Court. 13. Considering the need to ensure respect of ownership rights, also in cases where properties remain unoccupied, reports regarding the ongoing demolition of Greek Cypriot houses in the north raise concern. These include demolitions carried out in the village of Kondemenos in Kyrenia without the consent of the Greek Cypriot owners of the properties.16 With regard to the demolition since April 2007 of several houses situated in the Karpas region belonging to displaced persons, and taking into account the reply received from the Turkish authorities that such measures are aimed at ensuring public security, the Committee of Ministers is seeking clarification on the procedure followed by the Turkish authorities and the concrete remedies 14 Regarding cases of definitive departure from the north, according to information received by the Committee of Ministers, a new decision was adopted by the Turkish Cypriot authorities which stipulates that Greek Cypriots who reside in Karpas would continue to enjoy their property after their departure, as long as they maintain “minimal contacts with their property/or ties with the Karpas society”. The Committee of Ministers is awaiting further information and clarification on this matter, Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Ministers’ Deputies’ decisions, 1043rd (DH) meeting, 2-4 December 2008, public notes on the Cyprus v. Turkey case, 25781/94. 15 See footnote 13. 16 S/2008/353, para. 27.