The Case Discussed At Pace Safarov – I [Translation]


Posted on: 09-10-2012

Info Collectif VAN – – The thirty-fifth session
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)
has the sinister “Safarov Case” to the agenda of the discussions
of Thursday, October 4, 2012 to 15 h 30 h. The opportunity for
parliamentarians to present their interpretation of facts very
serious that violate the most fundamental European values. Some
were clear and unambiguous in their denunciation of Azerbaijan,
others have seen fit to put on the same plane victims and murderers
by saying that “the two parties in conflict believe they are free
to flout the law!” However, in this case, Armenia has violated no
law because it was not even consulted for the transfer of the ax
murderer Ramil Safarov, Hungary to Azerbaijan. Interventions most
“jouissives” Azeri parliamentarians are those who use this forum to
bludgeon PACE anti-Armenian propaganda of the primary, not hesitating
to resent the acquittal by a German court in 1921, the young Soghomon
Tehlirian, an Armenian survivor of the 1915 genocide, which had run
Talaat Pasha, the “Hitler” Turkish leak in Berlin … “I would like
to ask some questions. How can you justify that German courts have
released a killer who murdered Armenian a Turk in Berlin?” Was indeed
questioned Mr. Huseynov (Azerbaijan). We thank the brave parliamentary
institution of the European ridiculing the country he represents and
also assume clearly the complicity of nationalism and Turkish-Azeri
denial. His Turkish colleague, Ahmet KutalmiÅ~_ TürkeÅ~_, has lent a
hand in cynicism and bad faith to justify the heinous crime of Ramil
Safarov and his grace by the dictator of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev:
“From 1973 to 1987, Armenian terrorist organizations have committed
– including France – 170 attacks, which killed 31 Turkish diplomats
killed 39 civilians and injured more than 500. Yet we never heard any
Armenian – official parliamentary or citizen – condemn these murders
of Turkish diplomats. Instead, they were glorified and rewarded. ”
Damned! These organizations – probably a bit distracted – do not
have to hear the excuses of modern Turkey for 1.5 million victims of
the Armenian genocide in 1915, for the total eradication of a people
and its culture of their ancestral lands Anatolia. They had to take
note against the glorification of criminals including Young Turks in
Turkey today: Talaat Pasha, the “Hitler” Turkish his Mausoleum on the
Hill of Liberty in Istanbul, schools and avenues bearing his name in
Turkey and successive Turkish governments practice a denial of State
outrageous nationally and internationally.

They even interfere in the internal politics of France, the United
States, to block any legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide
denial or condemning.

Key interventions to PACE debate on Case Safarov, preceded by some
interventions in political lobbying …

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)

ESSION REGULAR 2012 ________________ (Part IV) REPORT

the thirty-fifth session

Thursday, October 4, 2012 At 15 h 30 hours The meeting was opened at
15 h 35 under the chairmanship of Mr.

Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly.


2. Conduct for Members of the Parliamentary Assembly: practice or duty?

Mr. WALTER (United Kingdom), Rapporteur of the Committee Substitute
Regulations, Immunities and Institutional Affairs * – Mr President,
ladies and gentlemen, this report is the brainchild of Mr. Heald,
but it comes from be appointed Attorney General by the Prime Minister
and his new duties prevent him from being present among us.

Mr. Heald has served on the Committee on Standards in Public Life in
the House of Commons and, since 2008, he serves on the Independent
Committee for the protection of privacy. It is always committed to
setting the highest standards in terms of privacy protection.

It can not be the slightest suspicion of corruption in the decisions
we make in the Parliamentary Assembly. In June 2011, Mr. Mignon and
other colleagues have found it necessary to develop a code of conduct
for parliamentarians to provide a framework notably regarding conflict
of interest, offers of gifts or hospitality .

The current members behave in a less ethical than the previous? Do
we have a reliable indicator to measure the integrity of a person?

The growing interest in the subject is due to the fact that relations
between the political class and the people have changed. The latter
wants to know more about its institutions and how decisions are made.

Some scandals over the past decade have undermined confidence in
elected officials.

Moreover, the involvement of lobbyists in the work of the Assembly,
in recent years, is a reality. Governments, political organizations
and even individuals hire lobbyists to promote their interests.

There are ten days, presidents of national parliaments met here to
discuss the challenges to democracy. They wondered how to improve
confidence in parliamentary institutions. Indeed, mechanisms must be
put in place to regain the confidence of the public.

Any member who enriched personally accountable for his actions.

The drafting of a code of ethics leads us to question whether or not,
at European level, a consensus on the matter. A jar of jam or a bottle
of wine offered at a Parliament must be regarded as a gift or a pot of
wine? A parliamentarian should he leave his job after being elected
or have the right to combine these two activities? There is probably
no single answer to these questions. Each country has its own designs.

However, the draft code of conduct aims to consolidate universal
principles, by each eligible regardless of their political affiliation
and ideology.

This document must be a reference in terms of expected behavior of
a parliamentarian. It deals with conflicts of interest, which must
be solved in the interests of citizens. If this is not possible,
then it is necessary to prohibit certain activities paid to defend
special interests. Gifts and benefits in kind should also be declared
if their value exceeds â~B¬ 200, parliamentarians are not required
to report small gifts. A special provision states that former members
of lobby groups should be treated the same way as representatives of
other interest groups. The Rules Committee has questioned the need
for a transition period for former members of lobbies and found it
was not appropriate.

It will revisit the issue in case of abuse.

The Code of Conduct gives the President of the Assembly as an important
role to decide him to initiate an investigation or penalties. It may
also decide to make a public inquiry or treat internally. It is also
he who judge the reliability of information communicated to him.

According to NGOs, parliamentarians have received gifts of a Member
State in exchange for certain favors. The draft resolution and the
code of ethics provide to amend Article 12 of the Regulations by
introducing the obligation for members of the Assembly to follow the
code of conduct in the exercise of their functions. In preparing this
report, we found it necessary to modify the access rules for lobbyists
and representatives of interest groups. The report of the Committee
on Rules to the Assembly today offers an excellent opportunity
to participate in the important work of GRECO on the prevention
of corruption. GRECO recommendations must be closely examined. In
addition, national parliaments are invited to cooperate fully with
the GRECO in the context of its fourth assessment cycle.

The code of ethics is not a panacea, but it is an important step,
and for this deserves to be adopted by the Assembly. I invite you to
vote for the report. It would be a fitting tribute that we would make
the rapporteur that I have had the honor to replace today.

In the general discussion, the call Mr Harutyunyan, on behalf of the
European Democrat Group.

Mr. Harutyunyan (Armenia) * – The European Democrat Group fully
supports this report, we have also signed the proposal which is
underlying. A code of conduct for members of the Assembly is a
necessary given the existence of conflicts of interest, lobbying
activities and their impact on the functioning of democracy and the
political decision-making.

Obviously, simple declarations of conflict of interest is not a
sufficient mechanism to ensure the transparency of the activities of
members of the Assembly. It is unfortunate that some of them conceal
their lobbying activity. It is revealed that once they leave the
Assembly. A number of our colleagues immediately become members of
lobby groups. It would be naive to think that they were not paid to
serve their cause when they sat in the Assembly.

While recognizing that lobbying is legal and necessary to the
functioning of a democracy, we must not forget that this is a
paid activity. The influence of interest groups is compatible with
democracy, but it can lead to political corruption and inequality of
representation. We must remember that the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe is not an organization that legislates, in which
lobbying may be a necessary tool to promote certain interests. The
Assembly promotes the values â~@~Kâ~@~Kof democracy, the rule of law
and human rights. Transparency is the cornerstone of good governance
and confidence in the institution. Anyone who engages in lobbying
activity can not meet the principles of the Organization. In addition,
lobbyists can abuse the relationships they have forged with the
Assembly to enrich themselves.

The Assembly must continue to reflect and continue to develop strong
mechanisms to ensure transparency and integrity of the Organization.

The first step in this direction could be the establishment of a
register of members and lobbying mechanisms to identify them.

The Committee on Rules, Immunities and Institutional Affairs presented
a draft resolution on which an amendment was filed.

This Amendment No. 1, tabled by Mr Harutyunyan, Mrs Postanjyan,
Zohrabyan, MM. Vahe, Hovhannisyan, Zourabian, Rustamyan, is, in the
draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 21, insert the following
sentence: “No former member shall not act as a promoter of interest
paid for at least five years. ‘ I call Mr Harutyunyan, for support.

Mr. Harutyunyan (Armenia) * – We propose that the former members of the
Assembly to defend against payment of interest during a transitional
period of five years. Some people, including heads of delegation and
committee chairmen, were indeed involved in such activities. If we
do not do so, we risk jeopardizing the essence of this Assembly.

Unfortunately, the Committee rejected this amendment – by six
votes against five. A transition period appears yet in our 2010
recommendation, and for consistency, the Assembly should follow its
own recommendations.


Mr. Mignon, President of the Assembly, took Madame de Pourbaix-Lundin
in the Chair.

4. The case Safarov (Topical debate)

The PRESIDENT-Order finally our current debate on the matter Safarov.

I remind you that the current debate is limited to half past one ET
that the Assembly has decided to limit the time allowed to speakers
to 3 minutes.

However, the first speaker, appointed by the Board from among the
initiators of the debate has, meanwhile, a talk time of 10 minutes.

I call Mr Chope first speaker appointed by the Board.

Mr. CHOPE (UK) – I am therefore delighted to introduce this topical
debate that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has
claimed. The committee was also mandated by the Bureau to follow this
case, after we learned that Mr. Safarov was transferred to Hungary
in Azerbaijan, where he had been pardoned just landed.

On 6 September, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has
discussed this matter and considered that it was a problem of extreme
gravity, under the rule of law. It is in this context that I write
my remarks.

February 19, 2004, while attending a seminar on “Partnership for Peace”
NATO Ramil Safarov, a lieutenant in the army of Azerbaijan, Armenian
murdered Lieutenant Gurgen Markarian with an ax. He was sentenced
for murder in Hungary to a minimum of thirty years in prison, but he
benefited from Article 12 of the Strasbourg Convention on the Transfer
of prisoners. Thus August 31, 2012, he was repatriated to his country,
where he was pardoned by the President of Azerbaijan and promoted
to the rank of commander. He even recovered the equivalent of eight
years of balance.

The President of the Council of Europe, the Secretary General, the
Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned the amnesty of course, the
spirit of the Convention, which aims to facilitate the rehabilitation
of prisoners and their transfer to their country of origin, having
obviously been violated. Some seem to think that Mr. Safarov is
innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and imprisoned.

However, the word “Amnesty” my law dictionary says: pardon granted by
the legislature, which determines that an individual is exempt from
the penalty imposed for a crime he has committed. It is therefore
clear sentences and to forgive an offense. In this case, Mr. Safarov
was duly tried and sentenced to a heavy penalty for his crime.

Mr. Safarov why he was transferred from prison to Hungarian
Azerbaijan? Because he requested a transfer under the provisions of
the said Convention, which was adopted in 1983 and which has been
ratified by a large number of Member States of the Council of Europe
and other countries.

According to the preamble of the Strasbourg Convention, the aim of the
Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity between its members for
the proper execution of justice and to facilitate the rehabilitation
of prisoners, foreign prisoners should have the opportunity to serve
their sentence in their country of origin. “Followed by a series of
provisions that organize concrete transfers.

Of these, Article 12 says that each party may pardon the offender
or commute his sentence in accordance with its national law that
contradicts the rest of the Convention. Thus once Mr. Safarov
transferred to Azerbaijan, the authorities of that country have
declared the right of amnesty and that the just rule of law in

To the Legal Committee, we are not talking here of the letter of
the law, but the rule of law. What else does the law and the law if
a criminal sentenced to a heavy, may return to his country, receive
forgiveness and be treated as a hero? Does not trampled on and not
all principles of justice? The rule of law requires, however, that
it also complies with the principles of international law vis-à-vis
the murderers.

Several UN resolutions dealing with the conflict between Azerbaijan
and Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The Security Council of the UN also
considers as permanently seized of the matter. But it is true that,
despite all these resolutions, nothing has progressed. The Minsk
process has been going on for years and do not advance! This is why
the two parties in conflict believe they are free to flout the law!

We need to persuade the international community to take seriously
looking for a solution to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
because it has implications for the Council of Europe and it is a
problem of rule of law , especially in regard to prisoners should
serve their sentence and not be treated as heroes on their return to
their country.

Colleagues, amnesty is an act of forgiveness at the discretion of the
authorities. But in some countries, it is the open door to all forms
of arbitrary and, in fact, this provision is inconsistent with the
principles of rule of law. We must in any case condemn what happened,
but more importantly, try to fight against these abuses if we want
our country to continue to live within the Council of Europe in a
peaceful manner.

THE PRESIDENT – In the general discussion, the speaker is Mr
Rochebloine, on behalf of the European People’s Party.

Mr. ROCHEBLOINE (France) – The appalling conditions in which the
criminal Ramil Safarov was transferred to the authorities of his
country are too widely known that I do not recall here a long time.

But still, how not to be indignant when a man was sentenced to life
imprisonment in 2006 for a murder committed in 2004, is found free
in just six years after his conviction and promoted to Commander and
even more celebrated in Azerbaijan national hero!

I also want to express my deepest sympathy to the family of Gurgen
Marguarian, who have just inflicted, eight years after his death,
a new and cruel pain.

I would also like to associate myself with the righteous indignation
of the Armenian nation and many international reactions.

But beyond feelings of solidarity essential, this dramatic event
leads me to express serious concerns.

First, in the process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh said.

Often in the past, the French parliamentarians who support the Republic
of Artsakh were accused of disregarding the provisions peaceful and
President Aliyev of Azerbaijan. But, what credit can be given to a
man who is a coward and a murderer a national hero? How to negotiate
with power who does not speak the language of people of good faith,
which twists the words of common sense in favor of its causes bad?

Then, for the values â~@~Kâ~@~Kthat we share. The right to a fair
trial is considered by the European Convention on Human Rights as a
fundamental human right. Its counterpart the obligation to respect
court decisions consistent with this law. It was not disputed that
the condemnation of Ramil Safarov was pronounced in strict compliance
with the fundamental principles of civilized nations. The Hungarian
government to reduce to nothing in defiance of its own justice is a
failure for the cause of human rights, in which the Assembly should
be particularly sensitive.

Finally, the European cohesion policy. Even if it is the exclusive
responsibility of Mr Orban’s release creates an Safarov disorder that
harms the entire European Union. A government that is willing to sell
the dignity of a great nation to pay off its debts by a dictator of
oil, what a shame for his country, what a shame for Europe!

Many observations which seem to justify a thorough investigation in
the Assembly about the real causes and likely consequences of the
case Safarov.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Lord Anderson, on behalf of the Socialist

Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – I share all about Mr Chope, but I
would add that this debate is not over Nagorno-Karabakh, and we do
not pronounce a new judgment against Mr. Safarov.

Several questions to ask: why Armenia has she not been consulted? Why
Hungarians are they content to show their displeasure? Our Hungarian
colleagues can they say that they have no economic interest or other
behind this transfer? We heard 3 billion promised in bonds …

Azerbaijani colleagues, how would you react if it was Armenia who
forgave a murderer, Armenian, Azerbaijani soldier of a?

Is it true that the government of Azerbaijan to Hungary said that Mr.

Safarov serving a sentence of at least 25 years? If so, how such a
guarantee could she not be given then the verdict is executed? Indeed,
upon his arrival, Mr. Safarov was pardoned, his pay past eight
years has been paid and a wonderful apartment has been placed at his
disposal! Such behavior – that is a real encouragement to murder –
a most negative impact as possible on the entire region and is an
obstacle to reconciliation and to the solution of regional problems.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you to Ms. Brewer, on behalf of the Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg) – The international community and our
organization were shocked by the case Safarov. Group of the Alliance
of Liberals and Democrats for Europe share the outrage expressed by
the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe and the Commissioner for Human Rights: the glorification
of criminals simply can not be tolerated.

We were dismayed by the attempts to whitewash the murderer who killed
to defend “national honor and dignity of the people” of Azerbaijan. I
hope everyone in this Chamber refused the national honor as an excuse
for a crime as serious as the damage to human life, protected by the
second article of the European Convention on Human Rights, the main
document of our Organization.

This case reminds us that unfortunately the inability or persistent
unwillingness of two Member States of the Council of Europe to
peacefully resolve the conflict between them over the years has
tragic consequences and causes loss of life. The glorification of
the crime committed by Safarov only reinforces the hatred between the
two peoples and makes the work of reconciliation even more difficult.

But the case is beyond the scope Safarov already tense relations
between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We must ask ourselves what kind of
malfunction or unwillingness could make possible a dishonest diversion
instruments of international cooperation in criminal matters?

The Government of Azerbaijan must understand that such acts of
glorification of crime calls into question the credibility of the
country and its commitments to its international partners.

I wish finally to express my sympathy to the family of the victim. Mr
Chope, I do believe that the Committee on Legal Affairs should take
up this issue!

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you to Ms. Woldseth on behalf of the European
Democrat Group.

Ms. WOLDSETH (Norway) – I was very worried when I heard that the
transfer of Safarov Hungary to Azerbaijan had revived tensions with
Armenia. Many member states of the Council of Europe have experienced
occupation and conflict. We all want in this Assembly, that conflicts
between Member States should be resolved as quickly as possible. We
all work actively in this direction.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe provides a forum
where representatives of Azerbaijan and Armenia can meet. Here,
we’re not afraid to tackle difficult issues.

Safarov The case was handled by the Hungarian judicial system
and we do not intervene in this area. However, our role is to make
recommendations aimed at Member States to comply with their commitments
vis-à-vis the European Convention on Human Rights.

We must also fight against impunity. It is important that countries
understand how their actions can be interpreted by others. On behalf
of my group, I would like to emphasize that it is of the utmost
importance that Armenia and Azerbaijan begin the dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the Unified
European Left.

Mr. KOX (Netherlands) * – It seems to me that we move away from the
subject in this debate! It is mentioned a specific case and not a
conflict in general.

Asked whether a prisoner may serve part of his sentence in his home
country, the answer is yes, under the Strasbourg Convention of the
Council of Europe. This right shall be protected. The entry into
force of this Convention has been real progress. This is one of the
great successes of the Council of Europe.

Safarov committed a crime in Hungary and, under the Strasbourg
Convention, was allowed to serve the remainder of his sentence in
his home country of Azerbaijan. On his return to his country, he was
immediately pardoned by the president, who has argued that Article
12 of the Convention authorizes it.

We should be proud of our agreement and preserve it. However, in
this case, it was mocked. It is also a violation of the rule of law,
as so eloquently reminded Mr Chope.

The Group for the European United Left calls on the Government of
Azerbaijan to reconsider the recent events which constitute a real
violation of the Convention.

There is barely an hour, the Assembly adopted by a large majority a
code of conduct for members of the Assembly. Article 18 stipulates that
members must respect the values â~@~Kâ~@~Kof the organization and not
do anything that could discredit the Assembly and its members. Whoever
refuses to condemn the government of Azerbaijan bafouera this article!

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Vejkey.

Mr. VEJKEY (Hungary) – Colleagues, all aspects of the transfer has been
made pursuant to the Strasbourg Convention of 1983 on the Transfer
of Sentenced Persons. The procedure was conducted in a transparent
manner. How Mr. Safarov was transferred to Azerbaijan corresponds to
the practice generally adopted by Hungary in such cases. All statements
that the case would have been influenced by the energy relations
between Hungary and Azerbaijan do not correspond to the facts.

Since the conditions specified in the Convention on the Transfer of
Sentenced Persons were observed in the case Safarov, his transfer
was authorized by the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice
on 31 August 2012. Hungary acted at best, and humanitarian aspects
were also taken into account.

The Hungarian Government was appalled to learn that Azerbaijan had
decided to pardon Ramil Safarov. Hungary rejects and condemns this
act of Azerbaijan. Immediate presidential pardon violates the essence
of the Strasbourg Convention of 1983.

This presidential act is in clear contradiction with the commitments
of Azerbaijan in the field who have been confirmed by the Deputy
Minister of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan in its letter of
15 August 2012 addressed to the Ministry of Public Administration
and Justice of Hungary.

On 2 September 2012, the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs Zsolt Németh, called Vilayat Guliyev, Azerbaijan’s ambassador
to Hungary, to inform him of the position of the Hungarian Government,
and he sent a diplomatic note.

Safarov was the transfer of a strictly judicial, which was not
directed against Armenia, and should not be considered an insult to
the Armenian people.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Rouquet.

Mr. ROUQUET (France) – Ladies and gentlemen, the case Safarov key
values â~@~Kâ~@~Kthat are at the heart of our institution. A man
killed another man was murdered with an ax to satisfy a nationalist
impulse of another age. The victim had done nothing, Mr. Safarov do
not even know. But Mr. Margaryan had the misfortune to be Armenian. Mr.

Safarov, sentenced in Hungary, to life in prison for brutal murder
was released extradited to his country by the Hungarian authorities
and promoted by President Aliyev on his return.

We are particularly concerned that the Hungarian Government, by
extraditing an assassin, played with fire in a regional geopolitical
context where the embers are extinguished. This act could jeopardize
the fragile security of the South Caucasus, but also the security of
Armenians in the world.

But what happened to the return of Mr. Safarov to Azerbaijan is even
worse. Welcome Mr. Safarov hero, glorify him for having killed an
Armenian is an apologist for intolerance and nationalist hatred.

“Never again,” these words were originally the creation of the Council,
meant: no more murderous hatred in Europe.

Celebrate Mr. Safarov, without regard to the family of Mr. Margaryan
is undermining the respect for life. This is not worthy of a member
country of the Council of Europe.

Some, Azerbaijan, sought to justify the move as a logical consequence
of the Nagorno-Karabakh. But as correctly stated the European
Parliament on 14 September, the frustration in the lack of progress
in the peace process over Nagorno-Karabakh can not justify acts
of revenge.

The assassination, and that makes it all the more odious, took place
during a meeting in the framework of the “Partnership for Peace” – yes,
for peace! Today we are concerned about the negative consequences of
this act on the Minsk process, which France is a major player. The case
is an Safarov bad sign for peace and stability in the Caucasus region.

Mr. President, you have made the resolution of frozen conflicts a
priority of your Presidency, and we welcome. The Assembly can not
remain a spectator to face this case: as in the case of the wandering
boat in the Mediterranean, it must take a strong initiative and its
role as watchdog of human rights. It is the defense of our values
and the peace process in the Caucasus, it is in the honor of our

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Harutyunyan.

Mr. Harutyunyan (Armenia) * – Colleagues, the facts are well known. A
person sentenced to life imprisonment by a Hungarian court was
transferred to Azerbaijan, then pardoned and released upon his
arrival in this country. However, the reasons for its judgment,
the judge stressed the Hungarian premeditated crime, brutality,
and the total absence of regret from Mr. Safarov.

This heinous crime is now glorified, justified and even rewarded
by a Member State Assembly. I thank the President of the Assembly,
the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights to be
immediately and unambiguously condemned this act. But no formal
authority of Azerbaijan has expressed regrets. Instead, it continues
to spread racist and xenophobic discourse against the Armenians.

Just after the condemnation of this pardon by the President of
Azerbaijan in the case Safarov, the leaders of this country have
begun to disseminate information in the media manufactured an alleged
plot to commit Armenian terrorist attack. This is a dangerous path,
because to prove his allegations, the regime of Azerbaijan is perfectly
capable of creating provocations to incriminate Armenia and Armenians.

The international community should be aware of these tactics worthy of
the KGB. In addition, in order to justify the murder of high-ranking
officials of the Republic of Azerbaijan have deceived the company
azerbaïdjannaise claiming that Safarov had committed the murder in
defending the honor of the flag azerbaïdjannais, or because he had
witnessed the murder of his family or even his sister by Armenians.

These allegations were totally rejected by the court.

Let’s be clear: attempts to relate this case to the regional context
are only efforts to murder, and disdain for court decisions. This case
does not concern the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is
a question of enforcement of sentences and respect for fundamental
rights, namely the right to life. A Convention of the Council of
Europe shall in no case justify the release of a murderer.

In this case, a Member State and its officers, deliberately and without
remorse, support and spread hatred and intolerance of a nation and
a murderer reward.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Agramunt.

Mr. AGRAMUNT (Spain) * – First of all, I am pleased that we have this
debate. As rapporteur of one of the states involved, it is clear that
this debate is very important to me. It is likely that we will hear
advice certainly radically contradictory on the part of both parties
to the conflict.

>>From a personal perspective, I feel a sense of rejection against the
unacceptable behavior of the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

But I want to understand the aspects related to the implementation
of the International Convention and national law, which is not clear
so far.

Mr Chope’s proposal is quite good. The Monitoring Committee has
not adequately studied the issue. I will when I go in this country
in November. The Monitoring Committee will participate in this
reflection. I hope that the Committee on Legal Affairs will help us to
understand what exactly happened between the three parties, Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Hungary legal point of view.

We face a frozen conflict, becomes active again. Nagorno-Karabakh,
Transnistria, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Cyprus etc.. there are
many frozen conflicts in Europe that we have not been able to solve,
I hope that we will succeed in the near future.

I welcome the initiative of the President of the Assembly. He received
the presidents of the two countries’ delegations to see if we can move
forward. This conflict goes back more than 20 years! At the Monitoring
Committee recognized that a colleague country occupies 20-30% of the
territory of another. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Nothing justifies the acts committed by Safarov and nothing justifies
jeopardizes the Government of Azerbaijan. But I want to look at all
facets, all the truths that we can hear. I hope that this afternoon’s
all said with elegance, without finger-pointing and accusations
without too strong.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you to Ms. Naira Zohrabyan.

Ms. Naira ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) * – Colleagues, this happened on August
31, can be considered as one of the most shameful events of our day.

Hungary, a member of the European Union, was extradited to Baku Ramil
Safarov who murdered with an ax during his sleep, the Armenian officer
Gurguen Margaryan. The murderer was pardoned soon as he arrived in
Baku because “arménophobie” and “Armenocide” are the greatest acts of
heroism in Azerbaijan. This shameful agreement was concluded before
the civilized world. The monster that killed the officer with an ax
for ethnic Armenian, was greeted as a national hero in his homeland.

Among those who welcomed him at the airport, were also members of this
organization. The decision to transfer Safarov confirms the absolute
fiasco of justice and pan-European equities. The criminal Safarov
has become not only an indicator of the bias of the European Court
of Justice, but also one of the great shames of Europe bringing yet
universal values.

Colleagues in recent times, we have witnessed acts of Azerbaijan
bought with caviar and its petrodollars officials and MEPs, which is
really disgraceful.

Hungary extradited Ramil Safarov. If Europe, organizations and European
authorities and the Assembly does not undertake concrete steps towards
Azerbaijan, justice and European values â~@~Kâ~@~Kwill be endangered.

It will then be clear and understandable for all, never, never,
Nagorno-Karabakh can not be part of a State, where the assassination
ethnic grounds is considered the greatest heroism for a country.

Azerbaijan is able to buy Olympic gold medals, to pay a huge ransom
for a fearful monster that can only kill people with an ax in their
sleep. But one thing is sure and certain, a country with a degraded
society, giving rise to Safarov and with the national hero, must be
condemned by the civilized world.

I will conclude my remarks with the observation of Azerbaijani
publicist Yussif Soufin: “With this approach, Azerbaijan strengthened
in the international community his type of country that raises
assassins to hero status.”

We need to evaluate the situation and reasonably ask whether a country
whose national hero is a murderer has the right to be a member of
our family.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Abbasov.

Mr. ABBASOV (Azerbaijan) – Today our colleagues from Armenia are all
to politicize the actions of the authorities of Azerbaijan concerning
the pardon Ramil Safarov. This is fully consistent with international
law and the law of Azerbaijan. Whereas Mr. Safarov had already served
eight years, the President of Azerbaijan has forgiven the officer of
a country in conflict, by a sovereign act he could perform perfectly.

It has been twenty years since Armenia has occupied 20% of Azerbaijan.

This creates difficulties durable. This conflict has caused a big
problem of refugees, internally displaced persons and the tension
maintained throughout the South Caucasus. We need to find a quick
solution to the situation in Nagorno Karabakh allowing the coexistence
of indigenous and create favorable conditions for economic recovery.

Azerbaijan is a strong partner in this essential area.

The Council of Europe should be interested in the security and
territorial integrity of all member states and ensure the rights and
freedoms of all people. Azerbaijan can not assume responsibility
for the safety of citizens living in the territories controlled
by the Armenians. We are trying to find solutions on the basis
of international law. We are ready to take the necessary measures
to those citizens who live in the area indicated. Would have the
legitimate power is restored and the constitutional Nagorno-Karabakh.

We should ensure a quick solution in the interest of the Council of
Europe. Solution to the conflict would ensure stability and security
in southern Europe.

It would also be good to be concerned within the Council of Europe,
the victims of the Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh and the
territory of Azerbaijan. My country has gas, oil, caviar, gold,
but what is the relationship with democratic values?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Rzayev.

Mr. RZAYEV (Azerbaijan) – Mr. Speaker, the discussion is very
interesting. I would like to highlight several points.

There was the terrible murder of an Armenian officer by a military
Azerbaijan. Why? The blood flowed because of the occupation by Armenia
of Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, where thousands of people were
displaced. We did not inform the public of how the Azeri populations
were decimated. Safarov comes from a district where he saw his family
down. I’m not trying to justify the events that led to the murder,
but you must understand why he did so.

Why Armenians are they doing now such propaganda around Safarov? This
is to divert the eyes of foreigners the real problem, the occupation
by Armenia of Azerbaijani territories. We’re talking about human
rights, the rights of peoples. Is it possible to prohibit Azeri live
in his homeland?

Do we have the right to prevent Azeri travel in the region?

Nagorno-Karabakh is my home, and yet I can go there whenever I want.

The real problem is!

We are losing our youth. This is not why Azerbaijan and Armenia
have raised their children. It is very unpleasant to hear such
charges unilaterally. This is the future we need to think, and
for that we need dialogue. But a dialogue between Azerbaijani and
Armenian communities in Nagorno-Karabakh is unthinkable: we appeal
to authorities in Minsk and the OSCE hope to achieve, and that there
is even enough. I address the Assembly, the President: help us to
establish a bilateral dialogue. We will not change history, but if
we do not solve this problem, it will continue and will be extended
to the Caucasus, which further complicate the situation.

If we are here, it is because the law has not been applied. If we
respect international law, we can solve the problem on the basis
of law.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Díaz Tejera.

Mr. DIAZ TEJERA (Spain) * – Non-compliance with international
resolutions is unjustifiable. But the atrocious crime which we speak is
just horrible. The description made Mr Chope gives goosebumps. This is
a barbaric act perpetrated by a human being against another defenseless
human being. The concrete act makes us just horror, but the broader
context should not make us more forgiving. No mitigating circumstances
can be given to the individual who committed the crime.

Mr Chope never been so weighted today. None of the players who
succeeded him did not bring anything new. After outlining the specific
case and its context, it concluded with a proposal. Here’s what we
must indeed ask ourselves: what can we do, we, as parliamentarians,
so it does not happen again?

>From a legal perspective and technique, there has been fraud on the
right, shows us the highly qualified staff of the Assembly. We must
examine the legal means to annul or revoke this act. But the key is to
prevent it from happening again. Because if the current text has made
this possible, there is no guarantee that it will not happen again.

The political point of view, I therefore based their hopes on
the initiative taken by you, Mr. President, to bring the two
representatives in your office. We will see if their willingness
to negotiate is real, and we will not be ashamed of not having done
enough. Thank you for taking the situation in hand.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

I call Mr Seyidov.

Mr. SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan) – A tragedy occurred. This tragedy has
to be political manipulation from some circles. “What would the
Azerbaijanis,” said the Honourable Lord Anderson asked, “if the
Armenians did the same thing? “I want to meet him.

In 1992, three Armenians killed Askerova Salatin, an Azeri journalist.

Two years later, the government of Azerbaijan has transferred to
Armenia. What is Armenia? She was immediately released.

In 1996, Kamo Saakov, sentenced to death for a bomb attack in Baku
Metro was in turn transferred to Armenia, which was also released.

In 2001, when Armenia became a full member of the Council of Europe,
France has transferred Garbidjian the terrorist responsible for the
bombing of Orly, which killed eight people and was released glorified,
he was given an apartment and it was received by senior officials
in Yerevan.

Did you know, my colleagues?

When we speak of this tragedy, let us not forget that there is a war
between two nations. We discuss the case Safarov, but Khojaly? We
never talk about it here! 716 women, children and elderly were
killed by Armenian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh. So why the Armenian
president is he glorified for having participated in the war in
Nagorno-Karabakh? Why former President Kocharian he spoke of a
conflict between the two nations? Speak not only of the case Safarov,
but also Nagorno-Karabakh Khojaly, my brother was killed by an
Armenian. Nevertheless, we want peace and that is why we are here.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Renato Farina.

Mr Renato Farina (Italy) * – Take care that the truth of the facts
does not become a means of delaying peace. For peace to triumph,
the boot of the strongest should not crush the vanquished. We must
recognize the truth.

He is not here to make history of the Nagorno-Karabakh but serene
judgment on two facts. The first is the killing: a military killed
another who worked with him. This is a sneaky and premeditated murder.

It is also a coincidence that another Armenian was not killed too. In
ancient times, they would have been a homicide with aggravating
circumstances, an impious act as contrary to the principle of
hospitality and sacred truce. All this under the auspices of NATO.

That’s why I felt a great uneasiness in Paris when I heard a colleague
of Azerbaijan Committee on Human Rights justify the killing by saying
that there were a number of mitigating circumstances.

In this case, the homicide was rewarded. After all, why, under the
guise of our Stars and Stripes, a parliamentarian he does not kill
another? It is inconceivable, can not justify such an act!

The other aspect is that a murderer who recognizes his crimes has
been put on a pedestal in his country. It is no longer a pardon or
a pardon is an exaltation, glorification – all enjoying a convention
of the Council of Europe to protect human dignity, not murderers. It
is as if you killed someone with the Tables of the Law which says
“Thou shalt not kill.”

We really need the Minsk Group mobilizes. We must put an end to this
unacceptable inertia, avoiding, however, that this act can be very
serious reason for further suffering. As also said Mr Díaz Tejera,
it is essential to mobilize to reach an agreement, however unlikely
it may be.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Huseynov.

Mr. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Firstly, the incident Safarov is related
to Armenian aggression and occupation of the territory of Azerbaijan.

These two facts can not be separated.

Colleagues, concern for others is a quality that should always be
observed by international organizations as well as those persons
having authority and high-level political positions. This lack of
concern for others and indifference generates a large number of issues
remain unresolved for years, subjecting millions of human beings in
terrible suffering.

But recent developments lead me to think that most people, including
the Council of Europe, this concern for losing the other, because
the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory by Armenia does not
raise that indifference. However, recent statements by the President
of the Assembly and other international organizations that reflect
their concern over the matter Safarov amaze me and delight me,
because they show that the people who make these statements have
not lost concern for others, even if it may be surprising to hear
statements also precipitated when we know that to release Safarov
is quite right in terms of legal and international organizations
have not responded to the occupation of Azerbaijani territory and
thousands of displaced people.

I would like to ask some questions.

How can you justify that German courts have released a killer
who murdered Armenian a Turk in Berlin? How is it that the French
authorities had pardoned two Armenian terrorists who were convicted,
one for attack at Orly, the other for killing Turkish diplomats?

Today, they are considered heroes in Armenia.

Safarov in pardoning, the President of Azerbaijan was quite in his
right and he expressed the desire of one million refugees and displaced
Azerbaijanis. Our concern is rather on the non-implementation of
Resolution 1416 on Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territory.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Rustamyan.

Mr. RUSTAMYAN (Armenia) * – Unfortunately, our Azerbaijani colleagues
continue to falsify the reality we are witnessing a new stage in
this falsification. All examples have nothing to do with the current

Indeed, the case Safarov is not just a problem between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Not at all! The case is an Safarov real challenge for the
values â~@~Kâ~@~Kwe hold throughout Europe. Especially, when a legal
instrument of the Council of Europe developed for humanists is used
to pardon a criminal, who brutally murdered a colleague just because
he was Armenian. This scandalous presidential pardon is completely
contrary to the spirit of international agreement negotiated to
allow people who have been convicted in the territory of a State
to be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in the
territory of another State.

It is quite obvious that the punishment of a murderer must be
inevitable, and for such a murderer be released, we trample justice.

So the real challenge for us today is how to restore justice and
to prevent the recurrence of such a violation of our principles and
values. Azeris and all the promoters of the interests of Azerbaijan
do everything to transform the real issue and justify the position
of this country. We can not tolerate the atmosphere reigning around
glorification of a murderer in Azerbaijan sees justified within our

For this purpose, the position of Azerbaijan is based primarily on
the following two arguments: the verdict was not fair and the case
must be examined in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh.

The lack of significant progress in the peace process in
Nagorno-Karabakh can never justify acts of revenge or provocation
that aggravate an already tense and volatile.

Criminal Court of Budapest has thoroughly examined all possible
versions, all aspects and circumstances of this heinous crime. The
verdict was rendered by the court of a Member State of the European
Union. I therefore hope that the Azeris hand, nobody has the slightest
doubt that this verdict is objective or that the Hungarian court
has jurisdiction.

Colleagues, it is imperative that our Assembly react quickly, because
the scenario proposed by Azerbaijan seeks only to promote and propagate
impunity, revenge, hostility and racism.

THE PRESIDENT – In the absence of Mr. Nessa, in the debate, the word
is Mr. Szabó.

Mr. SZABÃ~S (Hungary) – The purpose of this debate is the crime in
Budapest in 2004: A Azerbaijanis killed an Armenian. Even then, it was
clear that he was not only a serious crime, given the fact that it was
for the reason of its nationality as the victim was murdered. We also
knew at the time that this crime is not punishable by law in Azerbaijan
and Armenia that the death penalty would be applied. At the time, the
social-liberal government led tripartite consultations, negotiating
with both the Azerbaijani side with the Armenian government.

The negotiations resulted in a compromise accepted by all parties: the
murderer is brought to justice in Hungary and there also would serve
his sentence. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The government of
Hungary has reopened the case this year and transferred Ramil Safarov
to Azerbaijan in late August, where he was immediately pardoned by
the President of Azerbaijan and a hero’s welcome.

The treatment of this issue by the new government is quite different
from the previous government. The negotiations were, not tripartite,
bipartite but. The Armenian side has not been contacted or informed,
any more than the Council of Europe. The Hungarian government has
asked Azerbaijan no guarantee on whether Safarov actually be serving
his sentence.

The question is why things went well. But we still have no answer. It
is often said that the bilateral agreement on the transfer of sentenced
persons and the presidential pardon is entirely consistent with
international law. This may be true as to the letter, but certainly
not in the spirit!

Hungarian Social Democrats do not agree with the decision taken by the
government or with the forgiveness. We believe that his attitude is
irresponsible. We want good relations between Hungary and Azerbaijan,
but unlike the current government, it is we, the opposition, who have
apologized to the Armenian people.

Here, the Council of Europe, we need to deepen reflection and
investigate whether the international rules of transfer applies when
the conviction is related to a crime committed because of nationality,
religion, the political affiliation or color of skin. In my opinion,
this is not the case. We have tabled a proposal that we ask you to
support, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr. Ahmet KutalmiÅ~_ TürkeÅ~_.

Mr. Ahmet KutalmiÅ~_ Turkes (Turkey) – Relations between Azerbaijan and
Armenia are troubled for decades by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
and the escalation to a war is possible. Despite the seriousness of
the situation, it has not yet found a peaceful solution.

The case Safarov gave the region under the spotlight. Threats
of Armenian officials and the question of the recognition of the
sovereignty of the region is essential. Despite the legality of
Safarov’s extradition to Hungary, should neither exaggerate nor
minimize the political impact of this event.

The failure to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict is largely
due to the attitude of the Armenians, who see themselves as winners
and continue to threaten an assault. It maintains the hatred, the
only result to extend the list of victims and displaced persons,
on one side or the other.

Murder by Ramil Safarov should not divert attention from the human
tragedy remains the region. Now it is evident that conflict does not
benefit anyone, and certainly not, in any case, Armenians and Azeris.

The international community must help the two parties to resolve
the conflict.

>>From 1973 to 1987, the Armenian terrorist organizations have
committed – including France – 170 attacks, which killed 31 Turkish
diplomats killed 39 civilians and injured more than 500. But we never
heard any Armenian – official parliamentary or citizen – condemn
these murders of Turkish diplomats. Instead, they were glorified
and rewarded. Now here is our Armenian colleagues are injured in
their turn, now they understand how much it hurts. I ask them not to
exploit this and sit around a table with their Azerbaijani colleagues
to resolve their differences.

THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Toshev.

Mr. TOSHEV (Bulgaria) * – June 28, 2000, we were all in our party when
Assembly gave the green light for accession of Armenia and Azerbaijan
to the Council of Europe. Representatives of both countries embraced
even the proclamation of our decision. We believed then that the
Nagorno-Karabakh would be solved and there would now be a real
willingness to cooperate on this issue. We also explicitly states
that this dual membership would give a new impetus to cooperation in
the South Caucasus, in accordance with Article 3 also knew Statute
of the Council.

Meanwhile, we adopted resolution 1525/2006 and Recommendation
1771/2006. Unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers did not support
the ideas we were developing. Since then, we have produced a new report
on cooperation in the South Caucasus. The case Safarov has spawned a
new wave of hatred between the two countries. Safarov was sentenced to
life imprisonment for the murder of Gurgen Markarian at the Military
Academy in Budapest in 2004. I recall in this regard that we have
addressed the issue of honor killings through the Recommendation
1881/2009 and resolution 1681/2009.

See also:

The Case Safarov discussed at PACE – II

Back to category

Source / Link: Council of Europe

From: A. Papazian