A/HRC/22/18 known for his past statements aimed at stirring [up] enmity and hatred”. The Special Rapporteur recommended that the de facto authorities should respect the right of religious leaders to visit their community in the northern part without undue restrictions. The Special Rapporteur also referred to instances where pilgrimages from the northern part, including settlers from Turkey and their descendants, to the Hala Sultan Tekke in the southern part have been stopped, with the result that those who had not entered the Republic of Cyprus from the “legal points of entry” were prevented from crossing the checkpoints if they wish to visit Hala Sultan Tekke and other religious sites. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus should respect pilgrimages, including visits to the Hala Sultan Tekke, as an inextricable part of freedom of religion or belief, whose rank as a universal human right should not be supplanted by citizenship issues. 27. With regard to freedom of residence, nine Maronite families and two Greek Cypriots had asked UNFICYP to convey their request to reside permanently in their traditional villages in the north, however, during the reporting period no answer has been received from the Turkish Cypriot authorities on these requests. 20 D. Property rights 28. According to article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 29. With regard to property claims of Turkish Cypriots in the southern part, the European Court of Human Rights on 6 March 2012 rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies the applications of 21 Turkish Cypriot property owners who had complained about the restrictions on the use of their property within the Republic of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights concluded that the new provisions in the Turkish-Cypriot Properties Law 139/1991, as amended on 7 May 2010, “are formulated in broad terms and by express reference to the guarantees of the Convention as interpreted by this Court”, allowing the applicants to make a claim to the Custodian alleging a violation of their Convention rights and, in the absence of a favourable response, to lodge a case in the District Court.21 The European Court of Human Rights therefore could not exclude that the amended Turkish-Cypriot Properties Law 139/1991 provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Turkish Cypriots.22 30. With regard to property claims of Greek Cypriots in the northern part, the European Court of Human Rights on 10 January 2012 awarded eight applicants between EUR 100,000 and EUR 8,000,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in total more than EUR 20 million).23 In its principal judgement, delivered on 2 November 2010, the Court held in particular that there had been a violation of the right of eight of the applicants to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, most of which are located in Famagusta, and that 20 21 22 23 10 S/2012/507, para. 17; information received from UNFICYP. European Court of Human Rights, Kazali and Others v. Cyprus (application No. 49247/08), decision of 6 March 2012, para. 152. Ibid., para. 153. European Court of Human Rights, Lordos and Others v. Turkey (application No. 15973/90), judgement (just satisfaction) of 10 January 2012, para. 70.