Author: Harutyunian Christine

FREIZER: “THE US SHOULD BE CONCERNED IN NK CONFLICT SETTLEMENT”

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
April 26 2006

“Energy and security issues are likely to dominate the 28 April meeting
between President Bush and President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan.

It will be Aliyev’s first visit since becoming head of the oil-rich
state bordering both Russia and Iran, and Teheran’s nuclear ambitions
are undoubtedly one of the main reasons Aliyev has been invited to the
White House.” International Crises Group Caucasus project leader Sabina
Freizer has told APA while expressing her attitude to Azerbaijani
president Ilham Aliyev’s visit to the US. Sabina Freizer stated that
if the U.S. is keen to protect its energy and security interests,
the main issue on the table should be the unresolved conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh. For more than a decade, only a shaky cease-fire
has kept Armenia and Azerbaijan from resuming their full-scale
fighting over the small mountainous territory wedged between them and
Iran. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and soon to be completed
Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, which Washington sees as critical
to the West’s energy security, pass within 30 miles of this flashpoint.

In the past months, President Aliyev has intensified his bellicose
rhetoric, threatening to withdraw from peace talks and to militarily
recapture all territories currently occupied by Armenian backed
forces. He doubled the 2005 military budget to $600 million in 2006,
over 16% of Azerbaijan’s total budget. He has also pledged to make
military spending equal to the entire state budget of Armenia, and,
propped up by oil revenues, the Azeri leader’s threat is very real.

In Washington President Aliyev should be told clearly that a military
resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unacceptable. Instead,
the U.S. Government should – while making clear that it will be
pressing Armenia equally strongly – push Azerbaijan to accept now
the principles of a comprehensive peace deal which would include
the renunciation of the use of force, the incremental withdrawal
of Armenian-backed forces from all occupied territories around
Nagorno-Karabakh, the safe and voluntary return of all displaced
persons, the reopening of all transport and trade routes closed
as a result to the conflict, and a guarantee that the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh will be given the right to self-determination based
on a referendum to be held after clear conditions are met.

This is close to what the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe proposed in February, but there was little international
pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan to encourage them to sign the
deal. As a first step President Aliyev should allow people-to-people
contacts between the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides.

Until now, the Bush Administration has claimed to have a
three-dimensional approach to Azerbaijan, focusing on security,
energy, and freedom through reform. President Aliyev was not granted
an earlier visit to the White House because the 2003 presidential
elections were considered to be seriously flawed and were followed by a
violent crackdown on the opposition. The 2005 Azerbaijani Parliamentary
Elections were another disappointment, which should have precluded an
invitation to Aliyev less than six months after they were held. Some
of the three dimensions are clearly more important than others.

Even as democratic reform was lagging, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld traveled to Baku three times in 2003-2005. Most observers
in Baku consider these visits to be cementing the relationships that
could ease the way for the possible deployment of American troops
in Azerbaijan to be used in actions against Iran. Today’s invitation
may be part of the Bush Administration’s attempts to ratchet up the
pressure on Tehran. Interestingly, however, Aliyev is preparing to
welcome Iranian President Ahmadinejad in Baku in May, the second such
meeting in Azerbaijan after the two countries signed a non aggression
pact last year.

According to Sabina Freizer, if the US wants to ensure Azerbaijan’s
long-term support of its policies towards Iran, and overall regional
security, its best bet is to first focus on securing a peaceful
resolution of the existing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. While the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved, Azerbaijan can ill
afford to undermine its improving relations with Tehran. At the same
time, if Azerbaijan makes good on its threat to take military action
against Nagorno-Karabakh, close to Iran’s northern borders, it will
undermine U.S. energy and security interests and cause the flight
of foreign investment from Azerbaijan. The volatile South Caucasus
region, plagued also by unresolved conflicts in Georgia, risks being
completely destabilized, dragging into the fight neighboring Russia,
Turkey and Iran. This perilous scenario is worth talking to Aliyev
about as much as the threats of a nuclear Iran.

JAVAKHETI ARMENIANS PROTEST RUSSIAN BASES WITHDRAWAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
26.04.2006 19:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Residents of Akhalkalaki, the center of the
Armenian-inhabited Samtskhe-Javakheti region of Georgia, the way for
an armed communication vehicle belonging to the 62nd Russian base and
demand its return to the base. “This signifies the start of withdrawal
of the military base from Javakhetia, since the communication
vehicle will secure the withdrawal of heavy defense technology,”
a source that preferred to remain anonymous said. According to it,
the Armenian population is against the withdrawal of the Russian
military, since a great number of questions have not been settled
yet, specifically the problem of security of Armenians and creation
of work places for them. It should be noted that many families lived
at the expense of the economic infrastructure formed thanks to the
presence of the Russian military in the region.

The Javakheti Armenians demand the Russian and Georgian authorities to
explain why the local inhabitants were not engaged in the negotiation
process on the withdrawal of the Russian military base. “The Georgian
leadership have kept everything in secret so far. They do not say who
will replace the Russian military and this arouses the indignation
of the Javakheti residents,” the source said, reported IA Regnum.

ARMENIAN MILITARY FORCES BREAK CEASE-FIRE AGAIN
Author: E.Javadova

TREND Information, Azerbaijan
April 24, 2006

On April 23 Armenian military forces broke cease-fire again, Trend
reports with reference to press service of Azeri Ministry of Defense.

On April 23, at 20:25 till 20:30, Armenian forces opened fire from
positions 0.8 km south of Mazamli village of Kazakh area; from 22:30
till 22:45 Armenian forces fired from their positions at Voskevan
and Shavarshan villages of Noyamberan area.

The enemy was neutralized with a back strike.

MARCH TODAY TO REMEMBER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Alex Dobuzinskis, Staff Writer Glendale

Los Angeles Daily News, CA
April 24, 2006

GLENDALE — The day after appearing in a Turkish court for printing
a book on the Armenian genocide, Ragip Zarakolu was in an Armenian
church in Glendale explaining why he dares to anger his government.

Sitting behind a table and talking to a small group of
Armenian-Americans, the soft-spoken writer said he published works
about the 1915 mass killing of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by
researching human-rights abuses in Turkey.

“After my research, I saw that the Armenian genocide was the beginning
of (extremist) government policies.”

In Turkey, making those kinds of statements about the killing of an
estimated 1.5 million Armenians between 1915-1923 can earn rebuke
from fellow Turks or government prosecutors.

But for many Armenians, for whom the violent deaths are woven into
family history, the genocide is a wound not to be ignored. And today,
the date when the genocide is commemorated, Armenians will march
through “Little Armenia” in Hollywood and protest in front of the
Turkish consulate, demanding that country recognize the genocide.

At 101 years old, Hripsime Khachikian would have trouble getting out
to a march or demonstration. But the Glendale resident knows too
well what younger generations of Armenians are protesting. Two of
her uncles were hanged and a brother died of hunger in the genocide.

“How can I forget? I never forget,” Khachikian said.

Khachikian’s first 10 years of life were peaceful. Her father caught
fish and gathered firewood to support his family in a part of the
Ottoman Empire that is now in Turkey near Syria.

Then war broke out, and everything changed for her and the rest of
the minority Armenian community.

“From everywhere – from every village – they came, collected us and
then they said get out,” she said. “They took our houses. They came
and they took over.”

Then came a death march, one that Khachikian survived but that claimed
the lives of other deportees.

“They killed them, they killed them in front of us. I saw so many of
them (die).”

The Turkish government maintains there was no genocide and that any
deaths can be attributed to World War I and conflicts in the empire.

“Of course terrible things did happen, but there was no intention of
genocide so it wasn’t genocide,” said Engin Ansay, consul general of
Turkey in Los Angeles.

He also said the number of Armenian deaths has been over-estimated.

“There is no way, even if there were 1.5 million Armenians (living
in the Ottoman Empire), there is no way that more than 500,000 could
have died.”

To filmmaker Andrew Goldberg, whose film “The Armenian Genocide”
was shown on PBS stations across most of the country last week,
Turkey is hiding the truth from its own people.

“This is a state-sponsored and state-controlled policy of active
denial,” he said. “Many Turkish people know the story, but they are
afraid to tell the truth because Turkey has now made it illegal.”

About 1,300 people saw Goldberg’s film April 17 at the Egyptian
Theatre in Hollywood. The Turkish government slammed the film; many
Armenian-Americans said it was accurate.

Yet Armenian groups were irked by the decision of about 65 percent
of Public Broadcasting Service stations to air, after the film,
a panel discussion between four professors, two of whom denied that
the deaths of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was a genocide.

Some Armenian-Americans feared the discussion would just muddy the
waters, especially since the U.S. government has not officially
recognized the genocide.

In Turkey, which is far from recognizing the genocide, scholars
Zarakolu, the Istanbul-based publisher, and other scholars who use
the word genocide are a clear minority.

Zarakolu faces several years in prison in Turkey if he is convicted
in connection with his publications on the Armenian genocide.

“To discuss the Armenian question,” he said in Glendale,”is always
a problem of freedom of expression in Turkey.”

BUSH SAYS WORLD MUST NEVER FORGET

ArmRadio.am
25.04.2006 11:33

In his annual April 24th commemoration statement, President Bush
described the “mass killings” and “exile” of 1.5 million Armenians
noting that this was a “tragedy for all humanity and one that we and
the world must never forget.”

The statement was delivered following strongly worded letters from
more than 200 House and Senate leaders last week, asking the President
to properly acknowledge the genocide in his annual statement.

“Today, we remember one of the horrible tragedies of the 20th century –
the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians
in the final days of the Ottoman Empire in 1915. This was a tragedy
for all humanity and one that we and the world must never forget.

We mourn this terrible chapter of history and recognize that it remains
a source of pain for people in Armenia and for all those who believe in
freedom, tolerance, and the dignity and value of every human life. It
is a credit to the human spirit and generations of Armenians who live
in Armenia, America, and around the globe that they have overcome
this suffering and proudly preserved their centuries-old culture,
traditions, and religion,” President Bush said.

Bush’s statement, as in years past, encourages dialogue between Turks
and Armenians and states that “The analysis by the International Center
for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), while not the final word, has made a
significant contribution toward deepening our understanding of these
Events.” The ICTJ report, issued in 2003, reached the conclusion that:
“The Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of
the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention,
and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists
and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe
them.” The President’s reference to ICTJ serves as an implicit
acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.

In his statement, the President also says that the US applauds
Armenia’s democratic reforms and seeks to help bolster Armenia’s
security and deepen its inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic community. The
President also encouraged a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict, adding “We remain committed to securing a peaceful and
lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and hope the
leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will take bold steps to achieve
this goal.”

CASCADING TOWARD THE 91ST ANNIVERSARY? THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 1915
Dr Harry Hagopian

Assyrian International News Agency
April 24 2006

London — Armenians across all five continents are getting ready this
week to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

With the noteworthy achievements of 2005 now behind them, it is time
to think both tactically and strategically of the 24th April events –
not only for this week, but also for the longer-term policy of the
years ahead. After all, Armenians are nine critical years shy of a
century in order to break through the psychological barrier of denial.

Image In this context, events in Turkey as of late have also been
quite relevant. After all, this country – whose predecessor regime was
culpable for those atrocities but which remains to date a bastion of
rapacious denial – has taken some grudging steps toward acknowledging
the existence of a “problem” rather than simply blotting it out of its
collective psyche. In fact, having applied to join the European Union,
this post-Ottoman republic should accept not only EU democratic norms
and values, but also the requirement to guarantee the fundamental
human rights of all its citizens.

True, Atom Egoyan’s film Ararat was shown last week on the private
Turkish Kanalturk television station with less censorship than has been
the case in the past. It is equally true that a Turkish court dropped
charges against four Turkish journalists (Hasan Cemal, Ismet Berkan,
Haluk Sahin and Erol Katircioglu) who had been charged with writing
articles in which they criticised a judicial decision to delay a
conference last year entitled ‘Ottoman Armenians during the decline of
the empire: Issues of scientific responsibility and democracy’. These,
along with other small paces, have been positive although they have
stopped short of going any further in translating them from tactical
orientations to strategic decisions. For instance, while dropping
charges against those four journalists, the court decided nonetheless
to proceed with the trial of Mehmet Murat Kadri Belge, a columnist
for the Radikal newspaper. Besides, just as with Orhan Pamuk’s case,
the Turkish government did not address itself to repealing the articles
in the Turkish Penal Code that would allow such charges to be made in
the first place (Amnesty International UK is presently campaigning for
the abolition of Article 301), but applied insincere interpretations
to try and satisfy a Western EU-friendly audience whilst at the same
time not budging away from its own stolid political standpoints.

Let us be clear that there is no shortage of historians, academics,
institutes, lawyers and writers worldwide – not least the International
Association of Genocide Scholars – who have acknowledged the genocidal
nature of the atrocities meted out against Armenians during WWI. So
the problems – and thereby solutions – inherent to denial cannot
solely be traced to historical issues. On the contrary, they are
overpoweringly political. It is self-evident that many countries –
not least the USA or the UK – would not wish to upset Turkey as a NATO
ally with a substantive military presence and with many bases in a
geo-strategic but volatile region. The same applies for Israel. When
the then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres publicly stated in
April 2001 to the Turkish Daily News that the Armenian experience was
not tantamount to genocide, he was thinking of buttressing the strong
military ties and ongoing economic interests that Israel enjoys with
Turkey despite occasional complaints about Islamism. No wonder then
that Yisrael Charny, director of the Jerusalem-based Institute on
the Holocaust and Genocide, reproved publicly this wily politician
for misrepresenting the facts.

It is true that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by some
parliaments and councils indicates a painstaking but relentless
momentum forward. But Armenians should now consider working with
the younger Turkish academicians who have also been researching this
chapter of Turkish history. Moreover, they should be careful not to
be perceived as a token anti-Muslim (and by analogy anti-Turkish)
force, or be used in the brinkmanship between Turkey and the EU as
a convenient pretext for barring Turkish entry into the European club.

After all, Turkey has major challenges today that make it fall foul
of accession anyway – namely, the Kurdish issue that has recently
flared up again in the violence-wracked southeast region that is now
a homeland for a large Kurdish minority, as well as the refusal by
Turkey to open its ports and airports to Cypriot-registered vessels
despite a customs’ union agreement. Turkey also has economic woes,
one year short of parliamentary elections, with high public debt,
high current-account deficit and tax breaks that are contrary to IMF
recommendations – as evidenced by the recent spat over the appointment
of the central bank governor.

I believe Armenians should re-configure their strategic interests
discursively, with more reason and less intuition. Would the
acquisition by Armenians (and other long-standing minorities such
as Assyrians) in Turkey of EU passports, for example, not help them
in their legal and functional quests? Should those Turks who helped
rescue Armenians during the genocide not be honoured too, in the
same way that Israelis honour brave Gentiles who saved Jews during
the Holocaust? After all, these too are intrepid people who upheld
the honour of the Turkish nation when their government was destroying
its own Armenian citizens. Focusing on such a moral issue would prove
that many Armenians are certainly not visceral anti-Turks, and could
also turn into an exposed embarrassment for Turkey.

Geopolitics in the 21st century is not based on high decibels
and angst-ridden feelings alone. Rather, it is based on strategic
thought and vested interests. Could Armenians not invest in their
resourcefulness to excel in this arena too?

Belleville Intelligencer (Ontario)
April 21, 2006 Friday
Final Edition

Today in History

The Canadian Press

German air ace Baron Manfred von Richthofen was shot down and killed
over the Western Front 88 years ago today, in 1918, during a First
World War dogfight with Capt. Roy Brown of Carleton Place, Ont. Brown
was a flight leader in the 209th Squadron of the Royal Flying Corps.

Also on this date in:

– 1816, English writer Charlotte Bronte was born in Thornton,
England. The author of Jane Eyre died in 1855.

– 1948, William Lyon Mackenzie King set a record of service as a
Commonwealth prime minister: 20 years, 10 months and 10 days. He
retired the following November.

– 2004, the Canadian parliament voted 153-68 to pass a private
member’s resolution endorsing the controversial view that the 1915
massacre of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman troops was a
genocide.

SERGE SARGSIAN CONSIDERS NOISE RAISED BY AZERIS ON OCCASION OF KARABAKH
MILITARY EXERCISES STRANGE

STEPANAKERT, APRIL 20, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. “I have stated
many times and state now as well that Armenia is the guarantee of
security of Nagorno Karabakh,” RA Defence Minister Serge Sargsian
emphasized at the press-conference followed the Karabakh military
exercises. He considered strange the noise that Azeris raised on
the occasion of those military exercises. “Two weeks ago Azeris held
military exercises 50-60 km far from here. Would we raise a noise? This
is a normal negotiation process, and we have always been supporters of
the peaceful solution of the issue. I see nothing strange in holding
military exercises,” S.Sargsian stated. According to the RA Defence
Minister, one must not estimate Ilham Aliyev’s visit envisaged to
be paid to the U.S. as a sension: “Aliyev was elected the President
of Azerbaijan, it’s natural that he must have meetings with heads of
different countries. This visit may be observed in this context.” On
the other hand, according to him, a meeting with the U.S. President
is important for president of any country. Serge Sargsian expressed
confidence that the U.S. President will persuade Aliyev to solve the
problem in a peaceful way.

Murder Case Judgement Reverberates Around Caucasus

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
April 20 2006

Armenia welcomes life imprisonment for Azeri military officer who
killed Armenian – but Azerbaijan seeks appeal.

By Marina Grigorian in Budapest and Yerevan and Rauf Orujev in Baku
(CRS No. 336, 20-Apr-06)

At the end of a case that has transfixed the two warring countries
in the Caucasus, a Budapest court handed down a life sentence last
week to an Azerbaijani military officer found guilty of murdering a
colleague from Armenia attending the same English course.

Ramil Safarov was given a life sentence without right of appeal for
30 years, for the murder of Gurgen Margarian with an axe in February
2004. Both men, who were aged 26 at the time, were attending a NATO
English-language seminar in Hungary.

The case has become a cause celebre in both countries, divided by
conflict for more than 18 years, with groups forming in Azerbaijan to
champion Safarov and Margarian being honoured as a martyr in Armenia.

The murder was committed on the night of February 18-19 in the military
academy in Budapest where the two men were staying. Safarov came into
Margarian’s room and killed him. A post-mortem established that he
delivered 16 axe-blows and almost severed Margarian’s head.

Having killed Margarian, Safarov then went down the corridor and tried
to break into the room of the second Armenian officer on the course,
Haik Makuchian, but his door was fortunately locked.

The judge Andras Vaskuti explained the severity of the sentence by
saying that the murder had been premeditated and brutal and that
Safarov had shown no signs of remorse.

Safarov’s lawyers made a case that their client was suffering from
post-traumatic stress, as he comes from Jabrail, one of the regions
of Azerbaijan outside Nagorny Karabakh taken by the Armenians during
the conflict in 1993 and now under Armenian control.

There were several examinations of Safarov’s mental health, with one
coming to the conclusion that he was not entirely sane. However, in
the end, the judge cited the last assessment, which concluded that
Safarov was of sound mind when he committed the crime.

Safarov’s father Sahib Safarov told IWPR that his family were the
victims of Armenian aggression.

“Two of his cousins died from the bullets of Armenian aggressors –
Ildirim Khudiev and Jabbar Yusifov,” he told IWPR, giving details
of atrocities committed by Armenian forces in Jabrail against his
family. “What kind of attitude do you have to that?”

In an interview published in Ekho newspaper in January, the senior
Azerbaijani psychiatrist Professor Agabek Sultanov – present at the
mental health examination of Safarov, which deduced that he was not
entirely sane – said that he had reached the conclusion that Safarov
suffered from mental trauma.

Safarov later told the court that he was at home in August 1993
when Armenian forces attacked his home region at the height of the
Nagorny Karabakh war – although this version of events is disputed,
with Safarov saying at another point that he was studying in Baku
and Turkey between 1992 and 1996.

Sultanov also said that Safarov had told him that he and his
Azerbaijani colleague had been taunted and sworn at by their Armenian
counterparts on the NATO course. In one incident Safarov came to
a birthday party of a Hungarian colleague and gave him a wristband
depicting the Azerbaijani flag. Margarian reportedly came later and
told the Hungarian that the red strip in the flag was “their blood,
which we shed, we should rip out all their guts”.

This apparently is the origin of the account in the Azerbaijani media
that Margarian had insulted the Azerbaijani flag.

However, no witnesses were produced by the defence to confirm these
incidents of harassment in court and prosecution lawyers strongly
disputed that they had taken place. They also accused Sultanov of
bias, saying he had exceeded his responsibilities by taking part in
a medical examination of Safarov in contravention of Hungarian law.

“For two years the Azerbaijani side has created a whole industry
of lies around this case and not a single assertion has received
confirmation in the course of the trial,” said Haik Demoyan, who
represented the Armenian defence ministry at the trial.

In his last words to the court on April 13, the accused asked them
to take into account his psychological state, but did not say he was
sorry for what he had done.

Handing down a life sentence, the judge emphasised that “the murder
of a sleeping man in peace time is always a crime and cannot be an
act of heroism”.

Newspapers and broadcasters in both countries took a passionate
interest in the case with the Armenian media widely reporting that
an ultra-nationalist Azerbaijani newspaper had called Safarov “Man of
the Year”, while the Azerbaijani media gave prominence to a statement
by an Armenian nationalist that he would pay 125,000 dollars for the
assassination of Safarov.

In Armenia, the sentence was warmly welcomed. In Azerbaijan there
were mixed views of Safarov himself, but there was near-universal
agreement that the sentence was too harsh.

Haik Demoyan told a press conference, “The sentence for Safarov was
also a verdict on the anti-Armenian policies of Azerbaijan.”

Levon Mkrtchian, head of the nationalist Dashnaktsutiun group in the
Armenian parliament, said, “The decision has a moral and political
meaning for us.”

Narine Abrahamian, a lawyer, said, “I am sorry for Safarov, he is
still young and has already committed such a grave crime. I think such
a harsh sentence was required to prevent the repetition of similar
brutal crimes wherever Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together.”

Anna Hakobjanova, from the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait where many
Armenians died in pogroms in 1988, said, “It is hard to even imagine
what would happen if everyone who had suffered from war starts to
seek vengeance. Whole families died during the Armenian pogroms in
Sumgait and Baku. So should we all go and arm ourselves with axes
and go and kill Azerbaijanis.”

A public organisation Defence of the Interests of Gurgen Margarian
has been formed in Yerevan by his friends and colleagues. His parents
have been allocated a plot of land for the construction of a house.
They have never publicly commented on the case of the murder of
their son.

In Azerbaijan human rights ombudsman Elmira Suleimanova called the
sentence “unjust” and said she hoped that Safarov could be extradited
to Azerbaijan. She had earlier praised Safarov as a “model of
patriotism for Azerbaijani youth”.

Eldar Zeinalov, head of the Human Rights Centre of Azerbaijan, also
said the life term was “unjustifiably harsh,” arguing that the court
should have taken into account the youth of Safarov, the fact that
this was his first offence and positive character references about him.

Three days after the murder Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev called
on the media “not to inflate this matter”. But campaign groups swiftly
formed to call Safarov a hero.

One of Safarov’s main defenders, Akif Nagi, who also heads the
Karabakh Liberation Organisation which leads calls for a military
re-conquest of Nagorny Karabakh, said the court had “unequivocally
supported the Armenian side” and insisted that Safarov should have
been tried by a military tribunal since the murder had taken place
during a NATO seminar.

The Karabakh Liberation Organisation organised a rally on April 17
in the centre of Baku in which hundreds of students chanted “Freedom
for Ramil Safarov”. The march was broken up by police and dozens of
protesters, including Nagi, were detained.

Azerbaijani housewife Fatma Mamedova is one of those who voiced
support for Safarov as someone who was expressing the frustration of
Azerbaijanis who lost their homes to the Armenians.

“Ramil put up with it for a long time but in the end he couldn’t bear
it,” she said. “And I think he did the right thing. One way or another
he paid for the death of his nearest and dearest at the hands of the
Armenians and for the fact that his home is under occupation.”

Fuad Agayev, a respected Azerbaijani lawyer, agreed that the sentence
was too harsh, but blamed “certain public organisations functioning
in Azerbaijan” for making things worse for Safarov.

“They should not have used this unfortunate man and his act for their
own purposes,” Agayev told IWPR. “We have to urgently stop this current
campaign to raise Safarov to the rank of national hero. He is no hero.”

Safarov’s lawyers said in Budapest that they would try and get his
sentence reduced to one of 10-15 years and that if they had no success
they would apply to the European Court of Human Rights.

Marina Grigorian is editor-in-chief of De Facto news agency in
Yerevan. Rauf Orujev is a correspondent with Ekho newspaper in Baku.

KOCHARIAN AND KARASIN DISCUSSED CONFLICT SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH CAUCASUS

PanARMENIAN.Net
19.04.2006 20:50 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian President Robert Kocharian met with Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, who is in Yerevan to hold
a regional conference of Russia’s Ambassadors to Armenia, Turkey,
Georgia and Azerbaijan. During the meeting the parties discussed
the Armenian-Russian bilateral relations, developments in the South
Caucasus, especially the settlement of the conflicts available in
the region.

They also exchanged views on a number of international problems,
reported RA leader’s press service.