Author: Andres-Papazian

‘ECTHR RULE PROVES DINK DID NOT DEGRADE TURKISHNESS’

Today’s Zaman
Sept 16 2010
Turkey

Fethiye Cetin, a lawyer representing the family of Turkish-Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink, who was assassinated in 2007, has said the
European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) ruling is proof that Dink
did not insult Turkishness.

The ECtHR ruled on Tuesday that Turkey failed in its duty to protect
the life of the slain journalist and to effectively investigate his
murder. In a long-awaited unanimous ruling, the court also included a
reference to possible links between the murder of Dink and Ergenekon,
a clandestine terrorist group accused of plotting a military coup
against the government.

“The ECtHR has fully comprehended the fact that Dink had been targeted
since 2004, how the murder had been planned step-by-step since 2004 and
how the media and the judiciary played a role in this. The court also
understood the faults of the Trabzon Gendarmerie, the Trabzon police
and the Ä°stanbul police, which did not take precautions although
they knew the details of the murder. The court also understood that
there were no results obtained in the court case in Turkey and ruled
against Turkey,” said Cetin, who spoke at a press conference yesterday.

Cetin added that if the Dink murder had been solved “dark forces
within the state” would have come to light. “The state’s black box
will be opened. We have an opportunity from now on to restart the
investigations and continue to work to find Dink’s murderer. This
will enable us to even the score,” she also said.

Dink was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager outside the
offices of the Agos newspaper in Ä°stanbul in January 2007. The
investigation into his murder has stalled as the suspected perpetrator
and his immediate accomplices have been put on trial, but those who
masterminded the plot to kill him have yet to be revealed.

There is a lengthy list of suspicious irregularities in the
investigation into Dink’s murder, including deleted records and
hidden files suggestive of an attempted police cover up. The Dink
family’s lawyers have said much of the evidence indicates that the
murder could have been prevented.

Rober KoptaÅ~_, the new editor-in-chief of Agos, pointed out at the
press conference that Dink would be 56 years old on Sept. 15 if he
were alive.

“The ECtHR’s ruling is the result of Dink’s application to the court
eight days before he died because he had exhausted all legal channels
in Turkey. He was trying to clear the stain that claimed ‘he insulted
Turkishness.’ This was very important for him. Unfortunately, the
Turkish courts wouldn’t do what was necessary and ruled in a way that
resulted in Dink being targeted,” he said.

In the defense’s petition to the Strasbourg-based court, the Turkish
government claimed that Dink had insulted Turkishness and used hate
speech. The public raised many objections to this defense prepared by
the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said
he was personally very disturbed by the defense. Justice Minister
Sadullah Ergin was of a similar opinion. Davutoglu added that he
learned about the defense only after it was submitted.

Yesterday, Davutoglu said that they will not object to the ECtHR
ruling. “No ruling will bring our valuable intellectual back,” he
told reporters in Ankara.

On Tuesday, Dink’s wife, Rakel Dink, said the ECtHR’s ruling came as
if it is was present for Dink just before his birthday. Gathering
with Cetin and Agos staff in front of Agos and laying red roses on
the spot where he was shot, Rakel Dink said the sum awarded to the
Dink family by the court will be donated to organizations that work
for Armenian education and culture.

The court requires Turkey to pay 105,000 euros to Dink’s family in
compensation and another 28,595 euros to the court for expenses.

“Hrant was so uncomfortable with the label given to him because he
struggled against discrimination and racism throughout his life,”
she said.

On Dink’s birthday, the International Hrant Dink Award was presented
for the second time. Every year, the award is presented to two people,
one from Turkey and one from another country, who work for a world
free of discrimination, racism and violence, take personal risks for
their ideals, use the language of peace and, by doing so, inspire and
encourage others. Last year, Turkish journalist Alper GörmuÅ~_ and
Israeli journalist Amira Hass became the first recipients of the award.

From: A. Papazian

REPRESENTATIVE OF AZERBAIJAN TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: GOVERNMENT FULFILLED ITS DUTY IN THE COURT

Trend
Sept 15 2010
Azerbaijan

The Government of Azerbaijan in a dignified manner fulfilled its duty
in the European Court of Human Rights, authorized representative of
the Government of Azerbaijan in the European Court of Human Rights
Chingiz Askerov told Trend on Wednesday.

According to him, hearings were held in good conditions.

“Hearings on the case of “Chiragov and others vs Armenia” at the suit
of Azerbaijani refugees forced from Lachin held under good conditions.

I think that the court was satisfied with the materials provided by
us. The case raised questions related to each other. There was no
require in additional documents as presented documents satisfied the
court. We hope for a positive result “, said Askerov.

He also noted that the court will consider the claim depending on
its admissibility and importance.

“The court will consider the complaint depending to its admissibility
and importance. The significance of the claim is obvious. Human
rights were violated. If this is fixed by the court, the question
arises whether the payment of compensation for moral and material
damage. In this case, no longer will be the court. The court will
reach its decision after some time”, he said.

On Wednesday the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held
open hearings on claims of Chiragov and others against Armenia, as
well as Sargsyan against Azerbaijan. At the meeting on Azerbaijani
side was represented by authorized representative of the Government of
Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights Chingiz Askerov and
well-known lawyers Malcolm Shaw from England and Gabriel Lansky from
Austria. The meeting was also attended by the plaintiffs Fakhraddin
Pashayev and Akif Hasanov. The complaint of Azerbaijani citizens say
that their property rights were violated, they demand compensation.

Speaking at a meeting on the first case (Chiragov against Armenia)
Azeri side has informed the court that Armenia, which occupied
Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding seven regions, is responsible for
human rights violations in these territories.

Speaking at a meeting on the second case (of Sargisyan against
Azerbaijan) Azeri side has informed the court that, Armenia is also
responsible for human rights violations in the village of Gulustan
of Geranboy region, as the population of this village deprived of the
normal life because of the almost daily violations of the ceasefire.

It should be noted that the Armenian side in the last moment changed
the list of its lawyers. In a letter sent to the European Court stated
that one of the lawyers gone, and the Armenian has no information
that he would come to Strasbourg or not.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIANS FROM ABROAD TO SERVE IN ARMENIAN ARMY?

news.am
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

The RA Ministry of Defense is now discussing the issue of military
service for Armenians who are foreign citizens, Ra Minister of Defense
Seyran Ohanyan stated in Parliament.

According to him, many Armenians residing abroad ask the RA Ministry
of Defense to allow them to serve in the Armenian army. The Minister
reported he plans to discuss the issue with his Russian counterpart
Anatoly Serdyukov.

From: A. Papazian

ECTHR JUDGE ASKS AZERIS: HAVE YOU APPLIED TO NKR?

Aysor
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

During the hearings of the case “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” at
the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, judge Luis Lopez
Guerra asked the Azeri plaintiffs whether they had applied to the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic authorities for returning to their homes.

The representatives of Chiragov and others declared that the plaintiffs
had not applied to Azerbaijan since Azerbaijan does not control these
territories, neither they had applied to the Armenian authorities,
who also assert that they do not control these territories.

“And to Nagorno Karabakh?,” the judge repeated his question.

Jean-Paul Costa, presiding judge at the hearings at ECtHR Grand
Chamber, warned the Azerbaijani delegation to answer the questions
of the judge essentially and not to repeat what they have already said.

Note that the European Court of Human Rights today launched hearings on
cases “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” and “Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan”
in Strasbourg.

From: A. Papazian

G. KOSTANYAN: ANY INTERFERENCE TO IMPEDE NK NEGOTIATION PROCESS

Panorama
sept 15 2010
Armenia

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) inquired from the sides
during “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” case trial how the current
proceedings could affect Nagorno-Karabakh peaceful settlement.

In response, the representative of the Armenian government to the ECHR,
Gevorg Kostanyan, reminded that the peaceful settlement is underway
within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

“Interference of any other organizations, institutions and bodies,
including the interested ones, will impede the negotiation process,
held within the OSCE MG format. Both the Armenian government and
the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, dealing with the issue since 1992,
have many times reiterated this,” he highlighted.

ECHR kicked off hearings on “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” in
Strasbourg Wednesday and another case “Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan”
is supposed to launch on the second half of the day. Both trials
concern Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict.

From: A. Papazian

CAUCASUS NOT A CHESSBOARD, RUSSIAN BEAR NOT PLAYER EITHER, THOMAS DE WAAL SAYS

news.am
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

“Twenty years after the end of the Soviet Union, news from the South
Caucasus is bleak. The region’s two longest borders, which stretch
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between Georgia and Russia, remain
wholly or partially shut. Corrupt bureaucrats make even the nominally
open borders closed to free trade. Three de facto statelets -Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh- exist in a twilight zone, separate
from their Soviet-era “parents,” Georgia and Azerbaijan, but not quite
sovereign states either. Hundreds of thousands of refugees remain
displaced by war. Poverty and unemployment are endemic. Millions
work away from home as migrant workers, mainly in Russia. Both locals
and outsiders share the blame for creating this miserable picture,”
Thomas de Waal, a British journalist, writer and an expert on the
Caucasus says in his article “Call off the Great Game” published in
the “Foreign Policy” magazine.

According to him, the region is a “Great Chessboard” where the world
powers push the locals around like pawns to serve their own goals.

“That is not what actually happens. In actual fact, however the
geopolitical weather changes, the locals always manage to manipulate
the outside powers at least as much as the other way round. In the
21st century the Caucasus is still the Caucasus, in all its complexity
and variety-not an assimilated province of Russia, Turkey, or Iran,”
Voice of Russia reports referring to the source.

“Over the course of history, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians,
as well as the region’s other smaller ethnic groups, have all
persistently survived invasion and resisted assimilation. It’s true
the price of survival has come in the form of Faustian pacts with
other Great Powers, in which the Azerbaijanis allied themselves with
Turks and British; Georgians with Germans and British; Armenians,
Abkhaz and Ossetians with Russians,” the source reads.

The author stresses the second mirage is that of the Russian bear
looming over this region ready to maul the relatively defenseless
Caucasian peoples, even today. To be sure, Russia is still the most
powerful outside actor in the region.

“A third mirage is the perception of the South Caucasus as an area
of great Western strategic interest-an approach, paradoxically,
that actually does more harm than good,” the source reports.

“As for Western policy-makers, I believe they should ask themselves
two questions every time they contemplate an intervention in the
South Caucasus: “Is my action helping to open borders and free up a
blocked region?” and “Does it empower ordinary people and not just
governments?” the author concludes.

From: A. Papazian

AZERBAIJAN AT FAULT FOR KARABAKH SKIRMISHES? NEVER MIND.

EurasiaNet
Sept 15 2010
NY

The U.S.’s embattled nominee to be the next ambassador to Baku, Matthew
Bryza, raised some eyebrows during his confirmation hearing in July
by appearing to say that a serious skirmish on the Nagorno Karabakh
line of contact was Azerbaijan’s fault. This is what he said in July:

“What transpired that day remains not entirely clear to us, but we do
know that there were several people killed. There was an Azerbaijani
move across the line of contact, Armenia responded, resulted in deaths
which, yes, Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton did condemn.”

But now he appears to be backing away from that statement. In responses
to follow-up questions (pdf) from Barbara Boxer, a pro-Armenia senator,
Bryza stepped back from blaming Azerbaijan:

While I said that the Azerbaijanis moved across the line of contact
(LOC), the full details of what triggered the June 18 incident are
unknown. Unfortunately, there are a number of LOC violations each
year by both sides.

So was he right the first time? According to Jane’s, yes. The skirmish
was not planned by either government, but was a shouting match between
soldiers on each side that got out of hand, resulting in an Azerbaijan
non-commissioned officer opening fire (article not online):

[T]he skirmishes around Nagorno-Karabakh between 18 and 21 June may
not have been as co-ordinated and planned as at first perceived. The
fighting left four Armenian soldiers dead and four wounded…

The official version of the fighting provided by the Armenian military
on 19 June was that an Azerbaijani unit tried to capture an Armenian
forward position, but failed to do so and retreated, abandoning one
of its dead. The Armenian soldiers died or were wounded defending
their position.

Azerbaijani officials in turn painted their casualty as a “hero” who
fell while defending against an Armenian attack. It also reported
another Azerbaijani soldier killed in a follow-up or retaliatory
Armenian attack in another part of the LoC.

However, speaking off the record to Jane’s , sources both inside the
Armenian government and outside it, painted a different picture.

The situation along the LoC is generally calm, despite occasional
exchanges of gunfire. With the two sides’ forward positions within
shouting distance of each other, bored Armenian and Azerbaijani
conscripts in remote outposts frequently violate their rules of
engagement….

According to these source in this case too, Armenian and Azerbaijani
soldiers were engaged in some kind of sporadic exchange when an
Azerbaijani NCO unexpectedly opened fire directly on the Armenian
position. He was then killed by return fire.

The Armenian Ministry of Defence statement issued on 23 June also
referred to unspecified “discipline problems” as a possible cause of
the incident. According to official sources, Azerbaijan too denied
ordering the cross-border raid.

The unanswered question is why Bryza changed his tune. It’s certainly
not going to help the perception among pro-Armenia groups that he is
a stooge of Baku.

From: A. Papazian

ARMENIAN REPRESENTATIVE TO ECHR: AZERBAIJANIS DIDN’T DENY ARGUMENTS OF ARMENIAN SIDE

Panorama
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

During “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” case trial underway in the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) attorneys of the Azerbaijani
plaintiffs and Azerbaijani government’s representatives didn’t deny
the arguments submitted by the Armenian side, the representative
of the Armenian government to the ECHR, Gevorg Kostanyan said after
the hearings.

As regards the level of preparedness and arguments of Azerbaijani side,
G. Kostanyan said he would have refrained from any statements had he
been asked the same before the trial.

“The arguments of Azeris were emotional, though, they couldn’t be
any proof to their claim. Legally, they didn’t reject the arguments
of the Armenian side,” Kostanyan said.

ECHR kicked off Wednesday hearings on “Chiragov and others vs.

Armenia” in Strasbourg and another case “Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan”
is supposed to launch on the second half of the day. Both trials
concern Karabakh-Azerbaijani conflict.

From: A. Papazian

INCOMPETENT LAWYERS REPRESENT AZERBAIJAN AT EUROPEAN COURT

news.am
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

In considering the Chiragovs vs. Armenia case, the European judges
ruled that the Azerbaijani lawyers did not even have knowledge of
their national laws.

The Armenian representative Alvina Gyulumyan asked the Azeri lawyers
about when the Land Code of Azerbaijan was enforced. None of the
Azeri lawyers could answer her question.

Foreign lawyers are mostly representing Azerbaijan’s interests,
through the official representative J. Asgarov is a group member. The
Armenian side is represented by a group of Armenian experts headed
by Gevorg Kostanyan.

From: A. Papazian

NKR AUTHORITIES PROVIDE EXPLANATIONS TO EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

news.am
Sept 15 2010
Armenia

The Nagorno-Karabakh peace process is going on within the OSCE
Minsk Group, RA Representative to the European Court of Human
Rights Gevorg Kostanyan said, responding to a question concerning an
impact the Chiragovs and others vs. Armenia case might have on the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

The interference of any other institutions may complicate the hard
process within the OSCE Minsk Group. Both the Armenian Government
and the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, which have been involved in the
peace process since 1992 and thoroughly studied the conflict, have
repeatedly stated it, Kostanyan said.

He stressed that the Chiragovs and others vs. Armenia case does not
fit the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
and is not to be considered by the European Court of Human Rights, as
the territories indicated in the claim are under Nagorno-Karabakh’s
control. Nevertheless, the Armenian Government responded to the
European Court’s inquiry and provided explanations as the second party
to the claim lodged against Azerbaijan. Specifically, the explanations
provided to the European

Court of Human Rights contain the NKR authorities’ comment as well.

On September 15, the European Court of Human Rights is considering
two claims. The first claim was lodged by the Sargsyan family, who
had to leave the village of Gyulistan, Shahumyan region, in June
1992. In their claim, the Sargsyan family pointed out that Azerbaijan
is responsible for the destruction of cultural monuments and cemeteries
in the village.

The other claim was lodged by the Chiragov family.

From: A. Papazian