A/HRC/19/22 35. In this regard, Turkish Cypriot authorities defended their actions on the basis that the long-standing authorization procedures had not been followed. 50 In March 2011, Turkish Cypriot authorities revised existing procedures for Greek Cypriots to obtain permission for religious observances at places of worship in the north. Consequently, the minimum number of days required to make an application for religious services has been reduced to 10 working days. Furthermore, Turkish Cypriot authorities indicated that Greek Cypriots living in the north could hold religious services on any day of the week without permission if they are conducted by two designated Greek Cypriot priests at three churches located near the areas where they reside. 36. Archbishop Chrysostomos II of the Greek Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Cyprus and New Justinian complained to the European Court of Human Rights that he, the Church and its parishioners had been continuously prevented from holding religious services in the religious sites situated in the northern part of the island, which they were forced to leave in 1974. The Archbishop claimed that many properties had been destroyed, vandalized, looted or stripped of their religious function and that ecclesiastical vessels had been destroyed or sold. However, in its admissibility decision of 4 January 2011, the Court noted that the complaints with regard to freedom of religion were closely linked to the applicant’s inability to enjoy the property concerned. In this regard, the Court found that domestic remedies had not been exhausted before the Immovable Property Commission, “which is able both to order restitution of property and to award pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages in respect of any loss of enjoyment of the property”.51 Consequently, the complaints concerning property issues were rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the Court held that the complaints concerning freedom of religion and freedom of assembly did not raise any separate issues. 37. The Turkish Cypriot authorities also voiced concern at alleged limitations on freedom of religion or belief negatively affecting the more than 1,000 Turkish Cypriots living in the south.52 They are reportedly allowed to worship only in two mosques, namely, the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque in Larnaca and the Koprulu Mosque in Limassol. In addition, the Greek Cypriot authorities reportedly do not allow for the designation of Turkish Cypriot Imams by their religious authorities to the mosques located in the south. Furthermore, during the annual Turkish Cypriot pilgrimage to Hala Sultan Tekke in August 2011, only some of the Turkish Cypriots were able to cross the buffer zone owing to the lack of a clear advance agreement on procedures. In protest, the Turkish Cypriots cancelled a follow-on visit to the same mosque; UNFICYP intervention helped to defuse the tension.53 F. Freedom of opinion and expression 38. According to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.54 39. With regard to freedom of expression in the north, during the period under review, it was reported that journalists of the Turkish-language daily newspaper Afrika were attacked 50 51 52 53 54 See S/2011/332, para. 17 and A/HRC/18/51, case nos. OTH 2/2011 and OTH 3/2011 (reply of 3 May 2011). European Court of Human Rights, Chrysostomos II v. Turkey Decision (66611/09), 4 January 2011, p. 4. A/HRC/18/51, cases OTH 2/2011 and OTH 3/2011 (reply of 3 May 2011). S/2011/746, para. 19. See also article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 13