CONFERENCE ON GENOCIDE AND REPARATIONS UNDER WAY IN BEIRUT
Armenian Weekly
February 24, 2012
BEIRUT, Lebanon-On Feb. 23, the two-day international conference titled
“The Armenian Genocide: from Recognition to Reparation” began in the
presence experts from all over the world, ambassadors, current and
former government ministers and members of the Lebanese Parliament,
heads of Armenian religious communities and representatives of Armenian
political parties and other institutions.
The opening session of the conference Catholicos Aram I welcomed the
guests and the participants and explained the background leading to
the conference. Discussing the issue of reparations, Aram I said,
“Turkey must return the church and community properties confiscated
by the Ottoman Turkish authorities to their legal owner, the Armenian
Catholicosate of Cilicia. As the Catholicosate of Cilicia, we claim the
ownership of our properties confiscated by the Turkish authorities.”
The Catholicosate of Cilicia held jurisdiction over more than 200
Armenian churches in the Ottoman Empire before World War I. Other
Armenian churches, close to 2,000 according to church figures compiled
by the Armenian Weekly, were under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate
in Istanbul, the Catholicosate in Aghtamar, the Catholicosate in
Etchmiadzin, and the Patriarchate in Jerusalem.
Prof. Nora Bayrakdarian introduced the agenda and the two speakers:
H.E. Judge Fausto Pocar, Former President of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and H.E. Judge Joe Verhoeven,
ad hoc Judge, International Court of Justice.
Judge Fausto Pocar said that although it is important to list the
acts of the Genocide Convention, it is equally important to consider
intent and incitement. After mentioning examples from the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and that of the Former Yugoslavia, he
said that in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunals clarified
the crime of genocide by both applying the acts listed in the 1948
Genocide Convention and showing evidence of intent and incitement.
Judge Pocar stated that the same process could take place in the case
of the Armenian Genocide.
Aram I delivers remarks.
Judge Verhoeven began by saying that recognition of the Armenian
Genocide is an established fact and that the Turkish State is denying
part of its own history. He also said that the fact that the Genocide
Convention had not been written at the time of the Armenian Genocide
is irrelevant and that there is no statute of limitations on the
act of the illegal killing of people. The State of Turkey and its
territories still exist and it is therefore accountable. Speaking of
Church properties, he said that these were semi-public properties:
part of the historical heritage of the Armenian people and a necessary
component of their identity. Turkey cannot deny the identity of a
people. Turkey should respect it and make reparation to the Church,
which is responsible owner of this heritage.
The opening session concluded with the anthem of the Catholicosate of
Cilicia and the prayer of His Holiness Aram I at the Martyr’s Chapel.
Below are the introductory remarks offered by Aram I.
***
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: FROM RECOGNITION TO REPARATION
(Introductory Remarks by Catholicos Aram I)
I warmly welcome you to this spiritual center of the Armenian
Church which is indeed a place of living encounter and interaction
between peoples and perspectives. I extend my deep thanks and
great appreciation to all of you and particularly to the experts of
international law and Armenian Genocide for accepting our invitation
to join us in addressing critical issues and questions pertaining to
the Armenian Genocide.
The decision of US House of Representatives to urge Turkey to return
confiscated churches and church properties to their rightful owners,
and the approval of a bill by the French Parliament and the Senate
making it a crime to deny the Armenian Genocide, along with the
Turkish government’s aggressive reaction, have, once again, brought
the Armenian Genocide to the fore of international headlines. The
Armenian Genocide is no longer an exclusive concern of Armenian-Turkish
relations; it has become integral part of the global agenda.
The conference will focus on how we can move from recognition of the
Armenian Genocide to reparation. What procedures and mechanisms are
provided by international law to effect this transition? What are
the prospects and challenges before us?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United
Nations in 1948, had an immense impact on the self-understanding of
human beings and the self-affirmation of nations and societies.
Seeking to protect human dignity, promote justice, build greater
peace and generate reconciliation, it also challenged the dictatorial
governances and discriminatory patterns and norms existing in many
cultures and societies.
The core values and basic principles contained in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, namely the fundamental right of
human beings for life, freedom and dignity,[1] are also taught by
Christianity. The Bible is the source of human rights.[2] According
to Christianity, human rights are God-given, not man-made. As such,
they should be recognized, respected, protected and promoted by all
human beings, nations and states under any circumstances. To violate
human rights is to reject God’s gift of life, freedom and justice;
hence, it is a sin against God.
Human rights are not optional; they are integral to the Gospel
message. Human rights advocacy is an essential dimension of the
prophetic vocation of the church. To deny this commitment, is to negate
the very being and the missionary calling of the church. Human rights
in general and the Armenian Genocide in particular, are part of the
missionary calling of the Armenian Church and they occupy, therefore,
an important place on the agenda of its witness.
Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been bolstered
with broader networks and mechanism of implementation through treaties,
resolutions and conventions, human rights violations have continued,
and the UN and the international community have failed “to secure
their universal and effective recognition and observance”.[3]
Therefore, the implementation process and enforcement system of human
rights need to be strengthened, and early warning systems need to be
activated. Furthermore, the efforts of non-governmental organizations,
academic institutions and other actors in civil society, should be
supported by all those who wish to transform societies and build a
better world.
The resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, including the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Violation of International Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law and, generally speaking, the international criminal
law provide an important legal context and juridical framework for
matters concerning genocide and war.
In fact, acts committed by Turkey in 1915 are defined in the Convention
as Genocide. The Turkish government intended “to destroy, whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, social or religious group, as such”;[4]
they “killed members of the group”; they “caused serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group”; they “deliberately inflicted on
the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part” …~E..”;[5]
These acts constitute genocide as defined in the Convention and are
punishable, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war,
is a crime under international law”.[6] The Convention states that
all those persons who have committed genocide “shall be punished”[7],
whether they are “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials
or private individuals”.[8] And those persons who are charged with
genocide shall be tried either in the territory where the act was
committed or by an international penal tribunal[9]
The term “genocide” only became part of the vocabulary of international
law in 1944[10]; however, the carefully planned and systematically
executed attempt of the Ottoman-Turkish government in 1915, which
aimed at the total extermination of the Armenian Nation, fits the
definition in the Genocide Convention. This act, strongly substantiated
by the historical evidence and eye-witness accounts of Armenian
and non-Armenian, including Turkish sources, was unequivocally a
genocide. The Turkish authorities may deny that it was a crime against
humanity; some nations or governments may still keep silent about it
for geopolitical reasons. But denial is a dead end.
Negationism will eventually fall short before the truth. The
retroactive application of the Convention is a critical issue which
will be certainly treated by the Conference. Since only a state that
has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
may submit a case to it, I hope that the Republic of Armenia will
soon study this matter and take the necessary action. Are there some
other possibilities for legal action, such as taking the Armenian
Genocide to a national tribunal or creating a special tribunal or
taking it to the European Human Rights Court? These questions need
to be addressed from a juridical perspective.
In stressing the crucial importance of the promotion, protection and
restoration of justice, the Commission on Human Rights affirmes the
right of crime victims “to access to justice,” and spelles out various
aspects and procedures of “remedy and reparation” for the “victims
of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. [11]
Regarding the process of reparation, the following issues require
scrutiny:
a) The Commission provides a broad definition of victim, stating that
“a victim” may also be a dependent or a member of the immediate family
or household of the direct victim” .[12]
b) The victim’s effective access to justice includes “all available
judicial, administrative, or other public processes under existing
domestic laws as well as under international law”.[13] Within the
context of the restoration of justice “adequate provisions should
also be made to allow groups of victims to present collective claims
for reparation and to receive reparation collectively”.[14] And,
“reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations
and the harm suffered”.[15]
c) The state or government under whose authority the genocide occurred
is obliged to provide reparation. However, if the state or government
responsible for the genocide is no longer in existence, “the State
or Government’s successor in title should provide reparation to the
victims”.[16]
d) The Commission on Human Rights refers to three forms of reparation:
restitution[17], compensation[18] and rehabilitation[19]. These
concepts or forms of reparation may have different connotations and
implications in different socio-political contexts and in relation
to specific cases. How do they apply to the Armenian Genocide?
For decades we have focused on the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide by Turkey and the international community. In fact, the
recent Court cases against American, Turkish and French insurance
and private companies; the decision of US Congress to urge Turkey
to return churches and church-related properties to their owners,
and the Turkish government’s decision on 27 August 2011decided to
return to the minorities the properties confiscated since 1936, came to
re-emphasize the crucial importance of reparation. Indeed, recognition
of truth implies reparation; these acts are intimately interconnected.
This is at the heart of international law.
On the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, should we accept
a symbolic formal apology and recognition by Turkey of the genocide?
Should we claim financial compensation for the victims of Genocide
and for the properties? Or, should we claim the return of church,
community and personal properties? Further, should we demand that
reparation include the damages that the Armenian people were subjected
to during the “white genocide”, namely the constant threat to the
Armenian identity in a diaspora situation that was caused by the
“red genocide”? Should we, finally, consider land reparation within
the provisions of international law?. The formal recognition of the
Armenian Genocide is a conditio sine qua non for any attempt or process
aimed at restoration of justice. And, as a first concrete step in the
direction of reparation, Turkey must return the church and community
properties confiscated by the Ottoman Turkish authorities to its
legal owner, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia. As Catholicosate
of Cilicia, which was established in the 10th Century in Cilicia,
south-western part of present Turkey, and which was in 1915 forcefully
uprooted from its historical seat, we claim the ownership of our
properties confiscated by the Turkish authorities.
It is with this objective in mind that we have set the agenda of
this conference.
[1] Cf. Human Rights, Articles 1, 3.
[2] Cf. Isa. 61:1, Mt. 25: 35-40, Gal. 3: 28.
[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble.
[4] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, Article 2.
[5] Convention, Article 2.
[6] Convention, Article 1.
[7] Ibid., Article 4.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., Article 6.
[10] Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in 1944 and that paved
the way for UN to adopt the Conventio on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide.
[11] Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Violation of International Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law (Annex to Commission on Human Rights), II, c, d, e.
[12] “A person is a victim where, as a result of acts or omissions that
constitute a violation of international human rights or humanitarian
law norms, that person, individually or collectively, suffered
harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering,
economic loss, or impairment of that person’s fundamental legal
rights”. Ibid., V.
[13] Remedy and Reparation, VIII, 12.
[14] Ibid., VIII, 13.
[15] Ibid., IX, 15.
[16] Ibid., IX.
[17] “Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to
the original situation before the violations of international human
rights or humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes: restoration
of liberty, legal rights, social status, family life and citizenship;
return to one’s place of residence; and restoration of employment
and return of property” .
[18] “Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable
damage resulting from violations of international human rights and
humanitarian law, such as: a) Physical or mental harm, including pain,
suffering and emotional distress; b) Lost opportunities, including
education; c)Material damages and loss of earnings, including
loss of earning potential; d)Harm to reputation or dignity; and e)
Costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicines and medical
services, and psychological and social services”
[19] “Rehabilitation should include medical and psychological care
as well as legal and social services”.
From: Baghdasarian