Out of the spotlight: The rights of foreigners and minorities are still a grey area noted that the National Commission for Human Rights has also expressed the view that the provisions of this Law are contradictory to those of the ECHR.124 In a very similar case, on 7 February 2005 the Supreme Court banned the “Turkish Union of Xanthi” on the basis that it poses a threat to public order and national security and that its “aim is in contradiction with the international treaties signed in Lausanne, as it is attempted openly to present that in Greece (the area of Western Thrace) there is an ethnic Turkish minority, while according to these treaties only the presence of a religious Muslim minority is recognized in the area… The reference to the Turkish identity is not used to denote some remote Turkish origin but a current quality [of the members of the Association] as members of a Turkish minority that would exist in Greece and would pursue the promotion within the Greek state of state interests of a foreign state and specifically Turkey… The appellant [association] with through its insistence in keeping the adjective ‘Turkish’ in the Union’s name, in contradiction to the international treaties mentioned above, not only fails to contribute to the peaceful coexistence amongst the citizens of the area, which is necessary for the general well-being of the two Greek communities, Christian and Muslim, but also raises a non-existent minority problem of ‘Turks’.”125 124 Sisilianos and Ktistakis, $ / / ) ( 0 - ! 1 , ) , [Proposals on Issues of Freedom of Religion (especially relating to matters of alignment with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights)], NCHR, March 2001. 125 Motion to the Plenary Session by the Supreme Court Prosecutor Dimitris Linos, 23 September 2004, adopted by the Hellenic Supreme Court, case of “Turkish Union of Xanthi” and Others v. Xanthi Amnesty International 5 October 2005 62 The “Turkish Union of Xanthi” association was founded in 1946 and was initially dissolved in 1984, on the basis that it constituted a danger to national security, since which time the case has been examined by the courts. Amnesty International considers that the failure to lift the ban on such associations’ operations violates international law and standards on the right to freedom of association, and specifically, Article 22 of the ICCPR as well as Article 11 of the ECHR. Despite the fact that the authorities maintain that “the refusal of the denomination of an association which includes the word ‘Turkish’ is not an unconditional one”, 126 the fact that no such associations have as yet been given permission to operate in Greece raise further concerns about the failure of the authorities to comply with the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of members of minorities. These concerns are raised particularly in light of the fact that these judgments concern a recognized minority group, even though the word used to identify it is disputed by the authorities. 127 Thus, there are additional concerns that the decisions are in contravention of Article 2.4 of the UN Declaration on Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, under which “persons belonging to minorities Nomarch and the “Panhellenic Federation of Associations in Thrace”, decision number 4/2005 of 7 February 2005, para. 9. 126 11th Session of the Working Group on Minorities, Statement of the Delegation of the Observer Government of Greece, Permanent Mission of Greece, Geneva, 30 May 2005. 127 In fact, the HRC’s General Comment on Article 27 (protection of minorities) of the ICCPR states that “the existence of minorities does not depend on the state decision but is to be established by objective criteria; and that non-citizens and even non-permanent residents of state qualify for protection under Article 27”. AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005