Constant studies on Turkish given following the signing and official implementation of the Lausanne Treaty prove that there are systematic violations of articles: 2, 14, 27, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43. The question posed is as follows: What does it mean that the Lausanne Treaty is in effect? Do we simply mean that the exchange of populations took place? For, that was expected to be implemented by Turkey. The actual problem is the opt-outs. In other words, what happened with Constantinople, Imvros, and Tenedos? Do we really consider that Turkey has applied the Lausanne Treaty? Is it possible to believe this following all the facts known since 1923? Consequently, the correct question is: Does the Lausanne Treaty really exist? Is there a meaning in our implementing it unilaterally? Let alone to be based on it, while we know how unfair it has been for us; while we know that it rejected the existence of the Armenians and the Assyrians? Moreover, what do the negotiations considering the Lausanne Treaty as a given, mean? Is it the contrary; namely that using the Treaty which is systematically and constantly not applied by Turkey, allows us to lose any decency as regards our diplomacy? For, our diplomacy for different reasons may not be aware of the Lausanne Treaty violations, but this is excluded as regards the Turkish part. It would be a rational move to think how Turkey deals with us, as she is aware of this given and knows that we accept them. This move is necessary in game theory, because we are not in the decision theory context solely. Moreover, despite declaring the opposite -on diplomacy grounds again- we know that we are not in a cooperative framework. Thankfully, Nash’s theorem of balance may overcome this obstacle; otherwise, our mathematic basis would be erroneous. In other words, we may say whatever we want to, as long as we know where we stand. The general problem of the diplomatic sector is that, in reality, it does believe what it says, while not even Turkey herself does not believe it. Thus, how can we essentially protect the Lausanne Treaty opt-outs? The answer does not belong to diplomacy, but to human rights sector. There must be lawsuits filed for each Turkish violation in the European Court of Human Rights. And the result would be not merely symbolic, as some may think. Because, for a framework where there are no human values, only money cost has a meaning. And this is something that Turkey is already aware of by the Cypriot lawsuits. Lausanne Treaty albeit negative, may turn into a powerful tool for the human rights, as long as we want to.