Author: Karabekian Emil

FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway

The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief

========================================== ======
17 January 2007
RUSSIA: JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES "VERY GLAD" ABOUT ECHR VICTORY
_id=900
Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses are "very glad" about a recent ruling by the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that Russian authorities unlawfully
interrupted the worship of 103 predominately deaf Jehovah’s Witnesses in
Chelyabinsk. Spokesperson Yaroslav Sivulsky told Forum 18 News Service that
the ruling is also important because "deaf people in Russia often feel that
they are of inferior worth, outside society, but this has made them feel
rehabilitated and aware that their rights are respected." He regretted that
the case had not been resolved within Russia. Both parties in the case have
three months in which to appeal against the ECHR decision. The community
currently rents premises for worship without obstruction. Following another
ECHR ruling that Russia had violated the rights of the Salvation Army’s
Moscow branch by refusing to give it legal status and by branding it a
"militarised organisation", the judgement became final on 5 January 2007
and so Russia must make its compensation payment to the Salvation Army by 5
April. There is also a pending ECHR case about a ban on the Jehovah’s
Witness organisation in Moscow.

18 January 2007
TURKEY: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VIA STRASBOURG, NOT ANKARA OR BRUSSELS?
le_id=901
There are now two major questions in the struggle for full religious
freedom in Turkey, Otmar Oehring of the German Catholic charity Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>
notes. Firstly, will the controversial Foundations Law be adopted, and if
so in what form? Secondly, will the Turkish authorities move towards full
religious freedom after a recent momentous ruling by the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg? The ECHR did not accept the Turkish
state’s argumentation over the seizure of non-Muslim minorities’ property,
and even the Turkish judge at the Court had no objections to the ruling. In
this personal commentary for Forum 18 News Service
<;, Dr Oehring suggests that, as Turkish accession
negotiations with the European Union have gone quiet, the ECHR may now be
the best route for Turkey’s religious minorities to assert their rights.
* See full article below. *

18 January 2007
TURKEY: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VIA STRASBOURG, NOT ANKARA OR BRUSSELS?

cle_id=901
By Dr. Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
<;

Two issues remain at the forefront of attention for Turkey’s non-Muslim
religious minorities:

– whether the controversial Foundations Law will be adopted (and if so in
what form);

– and whether the authorities will take any steps towards religious
freedom and towards recognising the legal status of religious communities
in the wake of a momentous 9 January ruling by the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

In case No. 34478/97, the ECHR ruled in favour of a Greek Orthodox
community foundation running a High School in Istanbul’s Fener area (Fener
Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi) that acquired a building in Istanbul’s Beyoglu area
in 1952 by donation. The building was confiscated by the state as a result
of a court case launched by the Turkish authorities in 1992 based on a
ruling of the Court of Cassation of 1974 referring to the so-called 1936
declaration on the registration of community foundations. The ECHR held
that the Foundation’s rights to its property had been violated and ordered
the property legally returned to the Foundation or, if the authorities
failed to do so, to award compensation of 890,000 Euros. It also awarded
costs of 20,000 Euros to the Foundation.

The ECHR decision is positive – even if it is quite narrow in its scope.
It shows that the Court does not accept the Turkish state’s argumentation
over the seizure of non-Muslim minorities’ property. Significantly, even
the Turkish judge at the Court had no objections to the ruling.

The Foundation has been seeking to protect its rights through the Turkish
courts since 1992. In the wake of the rejection of this attempt in 1996,
the Foundation lodged the case at the ECHR as far back as 1998 – an
unusually long time to reach a ruling even by the Strasbourg court’s
standards. The Turkish government showed close interest in the case, with
eight representatives involved at the court. Most probably the number of
submissions from the Turkish government prolonged the case.

Although the Turkish press speculated excitedly about changes to the legal
rights of foundations in the aftermath of the ECHR ruling, I doubt that
changes will be far-reaching: the ruling itself will probably have an
impact only on the community foundations that are allowed to some of
Turkey’s religious minorities. Even so, under the Lausanne Treaty there is
no reason why other non-Muslim minorities should not have such community
foundations. The impact on religious freedom more broadly is likely to be
minimal.

Yet far more significantly, the ruling will provide a boost to religious
minorities who will be encouraged to see the ECHR as a route to seeking the
vindication of their rights. The Ecumenical Patriarchate has already lodged
a number of cases in Strasbourg over property and the Armenian Patriarchate
is likely to follow.

In one of its cases already at Strasbourg, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is
challenging the confiscation of its orphanage in Büyükada, Princes Islands,
arguing, in accordance with the title in the land deed – Owner: Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate – that the orphanage is the property of the
Patriarchate, a right Turkey says does not exist. The authorities do not
recognise the legal existence of the Patriarchate – whether under the name
the Greek Patriarchate (Rum patrikhanesi), as the Turkish authorities
prefer, or under the name the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to which the Turkish
authorities virulently object – and therefore claim that it cannot own
property.

Experts say that it does not matter either whether the Court rules that
the Patriarchate exists (therefore it can own property), or whether the
Court rules that the orphanage belongs to the Patriarchate (therefore the
Patriarchate must exist in law). Either way the Court will recognise the
Patriarchate’s right to a legal existence.

Moreover, presuming that the ECHR will rule in favour of the Patriarchate,
this would provide a precedent that should force the Turkish authorities to
treat other religious-owned properties and their owners in the same way.

The Vincentians, a Catholic Congregation, are also considering lodging a
case over a confiscated orphanage in Istanbul, originally run by nuns,
which it argues was church property. The Vincentians explain that the
orphanage was originally registered as the property of one of its priests,
as foreigners could not then generally buy property. After his death, the
Turkish authorities sought the seizure of all property registered in his
name and in 1991 the nuns were "shamefully" expelled as the Directorate
General for Foundations (which should never have been involved as this
property was not owned by a community foundation) had sublet the property
to a private company.

But even more crucially, potential new cases from religious minorities are
likely to tackle head-on the religious freedom itself of Turkey’s religious
minorities, not just their ownership of properties either through their
foundations or directly as for example in the case of property of Catholic
religious orders.

Progress elsewhere has been slow. During Pope Benedict’s visit to Turkey
at the end of last year, according to information given by media outside
Turkey, Vatican representatives and government officials discussed the
possibility of establishing a mixed working group to resolve the Catholic
Church’s problems in Turkey, especially over property and work permits for
clergy and nuns. Catholics in the country heard nothing about any progress
on the working group during the visit, and on 7 January the Vatican’s
Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone renewed the Church’s urging to
the government to initiate the working group. The Turkish government has
still not reacted at all to the Vatican proposal – at least in public –
even though prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself proposed setting up
a number of joint working groups when he met members of the Turkish
Bishops’ Conference back in 2004.

The long-running saga of the Foundations Law – which might have resolved
property problems for the foundations allowed to some non-Muslim
ethnic/religious communities – reached a new twist on 2 December, when
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a committed secularist, vetoed the Law which
had been approved by the Turkish Parliament on 9 November (see F18News 22
November 2006 < 875>).

The Foundations Law (No.5555) – which was intended to replace the
Foundations Law No.3027 of 1935 – was due to regulate the rights of all
foundations, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, though much of the attention
focused on the way it would have affected non-Muslim foundations. Muslim
foundations would have found their lives little changed – the Law would
merely have codified existing law.

Contrary to expectations, the Parliament’s version of the Law did not
offer what the non-Muslim minorities had expected over defunct foundations,
or over the property confiscated from foundations by the state in the wake
of a 1974 High Court ruling and then sold on to third parties.

Before Parliament approved the Law, non-Muslim circles were abuzz with
discussion over whether they should hope for this law’s adoption or not.
Many argued that any law adopted would be in a very negative version that
could not then be amended for another ten or twenty years.

When Parliament adopted the law, reaction among Christian and Jewish
communities was mixed. Some were happy that at least a few of the points
put forward by minorities had been considered, such as the demand for
return of or compensation for properties confiscated by the state as a
result of the 1974 High Court ruling and still in state hands.

On the negative side, reciprocity – a principle that has been deployed
especially to restrict the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with its
treatment tied to the Greek government’s treatment of its Turkish Muslim
minority – was enshrined in law for the first time. Although Greece does
unfairly restrict the rights of its Muslim minority, such restrictions are
not as extensive as those imposed by the Turkish government on its Greek
Orthodox minority. Yet it is quite clear that the formal inclusion of the
reciprocity principle in Turkey’s Foundations Law was done deliberately as
an excuse to restrict Greek Orthodox rights.

President Sezer’s veto of the Foundations Law was harshly criticised even
in the Turkish liberal media. Most of the President’s justification was
based on points he disliked which affected non-Muslim minorities. He argued
that some of these provisions went too far in their favour and went too far
against the Turkish interpretation of its obligation to its
ethnic/religious minorities under the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. On one point
the President insisted that it is impossible to recognise a foundation and
its ownership of properties for which there is no certificate as a
foundation.

One leading journalist from the Istanbul-based Radikal newspaper argued
that this was strange as when such properties were accumulated no community
foundations existed – such properties were simply social and educational
institutions. Permits to own them were issued in a different way, as in the
Ottoman Empire even in the late 19th century ownership regulations
comparable to those valid today did just not exist.

Although the President vetoed the Foundations Law it has not returned to
parliament. Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin declared in the wake of
the ECHR ruling on the Greek Orthodox college Foundation that some parts of
the Law would have to be redrafted. Any changes ought to cover foundations’
properties seized by the state and then sold on to third parties, an issue
not even mentioned – let alone resolved – in Parliament’s version of the
Law. Yet it will be difficult to overcome many deputies’ view that
compensating religious minorities for such seized property will be too
expensive and that the issue should therefore be dropped (see F18News 22
November 2006 < 875>).

Implementation of the Law – had it been adopted – would also have run into
problems as some provisions contradict other legal provisions, especially
those found in the Civil Code.

But such contradictions already abound. Even though Article 110 of the
Civil Code bans the formation of foundations with religious purposes, at
least three such foundations – two Protestant and one Syrian Catholic –
have been founded during the last few years. Whether this means that the
related congregations as such have got legal personality as foundations or
whether these foundations are foundations of congregations which as such
still are not recognised legally still has to be discussed as more and more
cases will go to the ECHR not just on the principle but on establishing
foundations.

Alevis – a Muslim group the government does not recognise as a distinct
religious minority – could also demand religious foundations – so far their
places of worship are recognised only as cultural associations (see F18News
22 November 2006 < 875>).

Property ownership for minority communities has been and remains beset
with problems. Places of worship of minority communities which are allowed
to maintain legally-recognised community foundations – such as the Greek
Orthodox, the Armenians, the Syrian Orthodox and the Jews – are owned by
these foundations.

But for Catholics and Protestants, who have not historically been allowed
such foundations, title deeds indicate that the congregations or church
communities themselves own the buildings. Yet the state often refuses to
recognise this. For example, it argued in ECHR case No. 26308/95 that the
Assumptionist Fathers, a Catholic Order, are unknown in Turkey, so cannot
own property. Places of worship which belong to communities which do not
have foundations are in a worse legal situation than those owned by
foundations.

In several extreme cases in the recent past, the state has argued that
some Christian churches owned by foundations are in fact the property of
individual saints (they are after all named after them). The state has gone
on to argue from this that the saints concerned cannot be located – nor
their heirs – so these places of worship cannot be returned to the
community foundations that claim ownership and should therefore be seized
by the state. Nowadays, the state is more willing to accept that minority
communities’ foundations own such places of worship.

But the problems for communities without foundations do not end with
insecure legal ownership of their places of worship. Such communities
cannot run bank accounts. A priest, bishop, individual or group of
individuals has to set up a personal bank account on behalf of the
community. The same even holds for communities with foundations, such as
the Orthodox or Jews: their community foundations themselves are recognised
but not the churches or Jewish congregations behind them. Such a
restriction could be challenged at the ECHR – it is part of the whole issue
of the lack of recognition of religious minority communities.

Publication of books and magazines is also more complicated – they have to
be published in the name of an individual, who therefore has to take
personal responsibility for their content. This has created problems in the
past, though less so today.

Religious communities’ charitable bodies also have no legal status.
Caritas Turkey, for example, functions under the control of the Turkish
Catholic Bishops’ Conference (which also legally does not exist) and even
works with government agencies, but has no legal status.

Religious leaders’ status is not recognised in law. The one exception is
with the leaders of Protestant associations that have recently been allowed
to register (see F18News 22 November 2006
< e_id=875>), though even then they
are recognised as leaders of an association, not of the religious community
per se.

As to the vetoed Foundations Law, the government can send it to parliament
again for further discussion – as President Sezer indicated in his veto –
although if it is again approved the president cannot veto it a second
time. His only option if he still disagrees with provisions in it is to
refer it to the Constitutional Court. The government’s other alternative is
to abandon it – or wait until the next presidential elections expected in
May, which many predict Erdogan will win.

Although Sezer did not spell it out bluntly, his comments on the vetoed
Foundations Law make clear that he does not want any of the properties
confiscated from foundations over the years to be given back. He sticks to
the understanding of the Kemalists, the followers of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,
of how Turkey should be governed. Erdogan, on the other hand, is no more in
favour of religious minorities’ foundations, but takes a different view of
the state’s role.

Yet sadly, neither of the two big parties, the governing Justice and
Development Party (AKP) or the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP),
is willing to accept the principle that all people have rights, regardless
of what was determined at Sevres back in 1920 and Lausanne back in 1923.
Neither party gives any sign that it has read or understood Article 9 of
the European Convention on Human Rights, which spells out individuals’
rights to religious freedom, still less that it is ready to implement it.

Now that negotiations with the European Union over Turkey’s potential
accession have gone quiet – and the Turkish government feels less
constrained to make concessions over religious freedom – the European Court
of Human Rights in Strasbourg appears to have taken over as the best route
for Turkey’s religious minorities to assert their rights. (END)

– Dr Otmar Oehring, head of the human rights office of Missio
< lturen/themen/menschenrechte>, a
Catholic charity based in Germany, contributed this comment to Forum 18
News Service. Commentaries are personal views and do not necessarily
represent the views of F18News or Forum 18.

More analyses and commentaries on religious freedom in Turkey can be found
at <; religion=all&country=68>

A printer-friendly map of Turkey is available at
< s/atlas/index.html?Parent=mideast&Rootmap=turk ey>
(END)

© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News

Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at

CBA CHAIRMAN: SUCCESSFUL INITIATION OF SECURITIES MARKET WILL CHANGE
CONDUCT OF MANY COMPANIES

YEREVAN, JANUARY 11, NOYAN TAPAN. We present the interview of NT
correspondent with the Chairman of the Central Bank of Armenia (CBA)
Tigran Sargsian.

NT: It is already a year since the CBA started the policy of inflation
targeting. Impression of an observer is that this policy has had
success, at least, infaltion was kept relatively low in the complex
situation in 2006. Is this impression correct?

T.S.: I think it is premature to make assessments. We see the prospect
in the following way: the first three years after adopting this
strategy should be transitional ones for us. During this period we
have to formulate clearly the rules of inflation targeting, make the
appropriate amendments in legislation and, more importantly, we should
create an opportunity to establish a correlation between the
short-term interest rates and the long-term credit interest rates and
the level of prices. At the same time, we received technical
asssistance and invited foreign experts who helped us to work out a
new set of instruments necessary for financial operations. Our aim is
that during these years the CBA can operate on the financial market
with this a set of instruments that will help with the identification
of transitional mechanisms. For this reason, it would be correct to
make an assessment in three years.

NT: However, some set of instruments is already being used this
year. Is it possible that it will change?

TS: In the next three years the set of instruments will remain the
same: we should be consistent so that the game rules will be
understandable for market participants. Thanks to these instruments
the relation between the short-term and long-term interest rates will
form.

NT: Can we say that in principle, the strategical directions exist,
and only the problem of their realization remains?

TS: We can. We should observe these rules consistently, use those
instruments, about which market participants are informed so that
these patterns will manifest themselves. Particularly, every week we
present our repo operations, offering market participants to use our
dram resources. The use of these rules in the long run dictates to
market participants such an environment, in which they would have a
clear strategy in managing their primary liquidity. They know that
every Wednesday the CBA offers dram liquidity to them, the CBA also
tries to remove excess money by selling its own securities. Observing
these rules in the long run will form the relation of these interest
rates.

NT: Nevertheless, these rules have functioned for a year…

TS: The rules function, market participants know them but it is
necessary that these rules impact participants’ behaviour so that in
the issue of liquidity management this set of instruments will become
a pattern for them.

NT: Can we, however, give some preliminary results for 2006? Is there
any correlation between the interest rates of repo transactions and
the rates formed in the Armenian market, and, as a consequence of all
this, between the change rates of monetary aggregates? Is there such a
dependence?

TS: That’s a good question. It is importnant for us that the rates of
repo transactions will be in line with interest rates. The 2006 data
allows us to conclude that we have already got a result: we managed to
guide the interest rate market and to form this relation. We are
satisfied with this.

NT: In 2006 the economic growth was again very high. In this respect
how the monetary and credit aggregates were changed in 2006?

TS: The growth of the broad money and the monetary base exceeded our
expectations, which we had calculated based on the expected indices of
economic growth. We envisaged a 10% GDP growth but it will be higher
(NT: preilmanary estmates show it is 13% or more). Last year the
growth of broad money and the monetary base made about 30%, while the
growth of dram portion of the monetary base – 42%.

It shows that a change in favor of Armenian drams is taking place in
broad money. Drams’ portion is growing more rapidly than that of
dollars. The same is true for deposits. We expect the amount of dram
deposits to become equal to that of foreign currency deposits
soon. (NT: In mid 2006, 62% of deposits with the Armenian banks was in
foreign currency).

NT: The impression is that in terms of market management, in 2006 the
bonds issued by the CBA played a more important role than repo
transactions did.

TS: Indeed, these bonds, which we started to issue in 2005, played an
important role in neutralizing excessive liquidity. They also gave the
CBA some extra resources to make foreign currency interventions in
order to neutralize exchange rate fluctuations and prevent the
extremely sharp appreciation of the Armenian dram. We’ll continue this
policy in 2007. Our bonds currently amount to 40 billion drams (some
108 million AMD). In 2006, the amount of foreign currency
interventions reached 220 million dollars, up from 102 mln dollars in
the previous year. By the way, thanks to purchase of this amount of
foreign currency, at the end 2006 he CBA foreign reserves exceeded one
billion dollars for the first time.

NT: The CBA has also undertaken the management of formation Armenia’s
securities market – something, at which several unsuccessful attempts
were made previously. How is this process proceeding? Of course, it
would be naive to expect considerable progress in a year
period. However, is there any qualitative change?

TS: The CBA Board has approved a new concept of development of the
securities market. The main ideology is the following: we gave up
supervisory relations with thousands of reporting issuers and aim to
identify a small group of promising open joint stock companies in our
market, as well as companies which intend to issue their securities
and operate in the securities market of their own free will – being
aware of this market’s importance and of the necessity to develop
their own business. We significantly reduced the number of reporting
issuers (those who have to sumbit reports to us) and sharply increased
the amount of the minimum capital, that is, only big companies are
presented, there are about thirty of them.

NT: What is the amount of the minimum capital?

TS: It is 500 million drams. Besides, we work with enterprises which
have many owners. Thus we aim to choose several dozens of enterprises
which would agree to operate in an open and transparent way, present
thier financial reports, share their programs with the public, pass a
stock exchange listing and, based on it, to issue their shares or
bonds. This will enable to organize stock exchange trade in the
primary market and to carry out secondary circulation if these
securities. If we succeed in all this, we can fix that the securities
market started functioning in Armenia. Naturally, it is necessary that
these enterprises undergo audit by internationally recognized audit
companies, which will certify that the reports of these enterprises
are real. Besides, the game rules in stock exchange trade should be
such as to create trust of investors, both Armenian and foreign ones.
For this purpose we have cooperated with the Stockholm Stock Exchange
(OMX) for a year now. OMX is now conducting a study of our market to
reveal, amoung other:

What potential for corporate bonds exists in our market?

What are development prospects? What kind of legislation do we have?

What infrastructures are in Armenia?

Based on the OMX’s report, we’ll start the second stage of the
securities market development. Today we are implementing rating of our
enterprises. About 40 enterprises have received a CBA rating, which
will allow the best of them to issue their bonds, while the CBA will
help with the issue and placement of their bonds on the stock
exchange. The first one is Cascade Credit company that has
successfully issued and completely placed its bonds.

Our purpose is also to bring big and famous enterprises to the stock
market so that they will issue their securities, which would allow
tens of thousands of people to acquire these securities. We are
negotiating with the management of these enterprises, offering them to
use this exceptional opportunity and presenting those opportunities,
which they would have when operating on the stock exchange. This is
most important for enterprises intending to extend their capacities
and increase productivity.

It is also very important that the cooperation with the OMX will
enable us to form a marketplace in Armenia, which will integrate with
international marketplaces, thanks to which our enterprises will be
able to directly place their securities in international financial
markets. It means that some alternative sources of finance will be
offered to enterprises with development prospects. There will be no
difference between Armenian and international markets.

NT: How many enterprises can meet these requirements at present? The
stock exchange will function only in the event that it is liquid, that
is, there are many securities which can be bought and sold.

TS: If we have an agreement with five big enterprises, that’s enough
to organize an active market work. The volumes of these five
enterprises in a few years may exceed several billion dollars. So they
can sell more securities than tens and hundreds of small
enterprises. If the start of these five is successful, many will try
to enter this market.

NT: So how many potential enterprises are there at the moment?

TS: Now we are working with thirty non-banking enterprises. Time and
the OMX study will show how many of them will pass the examination and
enter the stock exchange.

NT: What about the introduction of modern standards of corporate
governance in banks, which is also among the CBA’s goals announced in
early 2006?

TS: It is proceeding well, although we are not fully satisfied with
its process. Our purpose is to bring two or three Armenian banks into
international market so that they can place their bonds in
international financial market, for example, the London Stock
Exchange.

NT: Do you believe that now all the Armenian banks already meet the
requirements of modern corporate governance? Was there resistance on
their part when shifting to these principles?

TS: There was. Any changes occur with difficulty and are painful
because people have worked in those conditions for years. Therefore we
help them, invite experts, explain. Some people resist, punitive
measures have been imposed, there have been bankrupts. This is a
market, and only winners remain. In general, banks are more prepared
to enter financial market than other companies in Armenia. If two or
three of them complete all this process successfully, we’ll be happy
instead of them (smiles).

NT: What is the situation in other sectors of the financial market?

TS: Let’s start from the largest sector – insurance. In 2006, we
closed eight non-performing insurance companies and in 2007 we’ll
finish this "cleaning" action. In addition, we have put into
circulation a new draft law on insurance, which should be in line with
European standards. We expect it to be passed by the National Assembly
soon. We also create subordinate legislative acts and take steps to
interest foreign insurance companies in operating in Armenia. Despite
a decline in the number of insurance companies, the turnover in this
sector increased in 2006.

The main provisions of the development strategy in this sector are:

1. "Cleaning" of the field of insurance companies.

2. Creation of infrastructures

3. Creation of actuary companies

4. Creation of a single system of accident statistics.

5. Introduction of compulsory insurance rules.

It is the preparatory stage of the insurance system development, it
will take at least three years, as these problems are quite difficult
to solve. For example, for road accidents, it is necessary to ensure
that none of these accidents has been left off the registration list,
which in its turn requires not only time and joint work of various
departments but also qualified staff, whose lack is felt
everywhere. The same is true for fires, health care and other sectors.

Ae regards the pension system, the government has approved its
concept. We expect that the respective law will come into force in the
second half of 2007 and the reforms of the system will begin.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Father Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

HIS HOLINESS’ REPRESENTATIVE OFFERS RESPECT TO THE
MEMORY OF SHEIKH MEHDI SHAMSEDDINE

Sheikh Abdel Emir Kabalan, Deputy President of the Supreme Council of
Shiites in Lebanon, accepted condolences in the Council’s headquarters on 10
January, the anniversary of Sheikh Mohammed Mehdi Shamseddine’s death.

On this occasion, Sheikh Kabalan received a number of spiritual leaders and
their representatives, including the representative of the His Holiness Aram
I, V. Rev. Fr. Norayr Ashekian. On behalf of the Armenian Pontiff, V. Rev.
Fr. Ashekian expressed respect for the memory of Sheikh Shamseddine, who,
during his tenure, had encouraged dialogue based on Lebanon’s supreme
interests.

##
View the photo here:
*****
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

US CHARGE D’AFFAIRES TO RA: ARMENIA IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM- FIGHT

Yerevan, January 12. ArmInfo. Armenia is of great importance in the
international terrorism-fight, US Charge d’Affaires to Armenia,
Anthony Godfrey, told the journalists today.

Having reminded that the terrorism-fight has no bounds, A. Godfrey
stressed the importance of protection of the country’s frontiers, arms
carriage, as well detection of illegal financing streams being an
oxygen for terrorists. In view of this, A. Godfrey noted the creation
of a Center of financial surveillance in the RA CB structure with
satisfaction.

Asked if he can refute or confirm the Azeri statements that the
territory of Nagorno Karabakh is used to grow drags and prepare
terrorists, Anthony Godfrey said : "I cannot comment on activities in
occupied territories. I can only say that the USA assistance, aimed at
the strengthening of frontiers control, is carried out in Armenia
only", Godfrey said.

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF USA ON ISG REPORT
By Amarik Sardar

KurdishMedia, UK

Jan 11 2007

Dear Mr. President!

I am the Kurd from Armenia, a Kurdish writer, and a journalist, the
chairman of board of Advice of Kurdish intelligentsia in Armenia. I
am 71 and my life experience allows me to address to you with the
open letter.

The reason that has induced me to undertake this letter became
the Baker-Hamilton report in which the rights of Kurds of Southern
Kurdistan are ignored.

I am assured, that you know very well to what persecutions and
oppressions the Kurdish people were exposed for all its century-old
history. I shall not begin to write about it. All that evil and
persecutions which were brought down on our people by oppressors,
was seen with all world but to a great regret, all world community
continued to remain deaf and mute. This silence and inactivity last
long – till 1990.

Before it, in 1988 it has been destroyed 200 thousand Kurds during
the Anfal operation in the south of Kurdistan. Exactly after that
in 1990 under the initiative of the USA and the Great Britain the
resolution of the United Nations was adopted, according to which half
the territory of Southern Kurdistan has been accepted to be declared
a zone of interdiction for flights of aircraft of Saddam Hussein.

Owing to protection of the USA and the Great Britain the part of
our people has sighed freely and has managed to start creation of a
peace life. Within last 16 years this part of the south of Kurdistan,
which USA and the Great Britain have taken under the protection,
it became an isle of democracy, freedom and independence in Near and
Middle East. It became possible owing to a position of your country,
and it knows and appreciates each Kurd-patriot.

We, the Kurds, living outside the native land, were happy and proud
when you have accepted the President of Southern Kurdistan, dear Mr.

Massoud Barzani in the White House and you have stated a worthy
estimation to its affairs and as a whole to Kurds of Southern
Kurdistan. It has given a hope to our hearts, that the USA will never
turn away from the south of Kurdistan any more.

It seems to me that you trust that on Near and Middle East you do
not have more devoted friends than Kurds. Fidelity is the integral
feature of Kurdish character, and they never can be named ungrateful
because they remember and appreciate the rendered good.

Having read through the Baker-Hamilton report, I had doubts whether
its authors can really distinguish friends and enemies of America
from each other truly? In their report all those achievements and
successes to which Southern Kurdistan has reached, are ignored and
it is not specified any true way for the decision of a problem of
Kirkuk. All the world knows, that in Southern Kurdistan are created
and successfully function the parliament, bodies of board, justice
and judicial system. In Southern Kurdistan various political parties
operate freely and without all barriers. Does it have no value for
them really? Is there anything similar in the countries next to Iraq
and in Iraq (its Arabian part)?

I have been twice in Southern Kurdistan and I saw with my own eyes,
how much our people are free, testing no fear and horror of oppressions
there yet. I saw how the press, radio and TV not only of the political
parties but also of the different nationalities, occupying this region
as well, are free.

Dear Mr. George W. Bush!

I trust in your political wisdom and foresight and I hope, that you
do not admit realization of the Baker-Hamilton plan (in particular
concerning Kurds), which again can put Kurdish people before threat
of physical destruction.

I am assured that you do not admit it, other wise the prestige of the
USA can suffer in the opinion of the world community. You must not
admit, that your and our enemies have triumphed, and friends have
lost courage. All our looks are turned only on there – to Southern
Kurdistan and the events concerning it should excite us.

Till 1990 Kurds often said: "Our friends are only our mountains".

This statement is familiar to both of your generals and the
high-ranking officials as well. And they assured during the numerous
meetings with the people of Southern Kurdistan: "Your friends are
not only mountains, but we are your friends too".

Also has now come to prove time it in practice.

Yours faithfully, Mr. Amarik Sardar, The Kurdish writer, The deserved
journalist of Armenia, Chairman of board of Advice of Kurdish
Intelligentsia of Armenia

ARMENIA’S TAXATION, CUSTOMS SERVICES NOT EAGER TO FIGHT "SHADY" ECONOMY

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Jan 10 2007

YEREVAN, January 10. /ARKA/. The country’s taxation and customs
services do not show due eagerness in struggling against the "shady"
economy, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharyan said at the meeting
with representatives of the respective departments, referring to the
data of the Monitoring Unit.

Kocharyan pointed out the impropriety of reminding the services of
the large volume of "black’ economy and their duties.

Although certain progress has been recorded in the sphere, the process
is far from being satisfactory, Kocharyan said.

The country’s president and the government will have higher
requirements towards the work of the taxation and customs services
in 2007, Kocharyan said.

MISLEADING INFORMATION ON KfW’S BRANCH IN ARMENIA

Yerevan, January 11. ArmInfo. "The information that Armenia
actively negotiates with German side to open a branch of German state
development bank KfW in Armenia – as stated by an insurance information
site ForINSURER.com, does not represent the facts", Karapet Gevorgyan,
Head of the KfW Representative Office in Yerevan, told ArmInfo today.

He said that as per KfW’s regulations, the bank’s branches could
function only in Germany. However, the bank can open its representative
offices abroad to implement economic development and technical support
programs. Mr. Gevorgyan pointed out that KfW representative office
in Armenia was set up in October 1998.

EX-MINISTER OF DEFENCE DOUBTS THAT AUTHORITIES TO UNDERTAKE HOLDING OT JUST ELECTIONS

Noyan Tapan
Dec 08 2006

YEREVAN, JANUARY 8, NOYAN TAPAN. "The year of 2006 was very passive
for the opposition, it was not able to undertake anything, incorrect
estimation of the refendum on the constitutional amednments in
2005 influenced on breaking of the opposition," Lieutenant General
Vagharshak Haroutiunian, the Co-Chairmen of the "National Re-Birth"
party, Ex-Minister of Defence of Armenia mentioned it in the interview
to the Noyan Tapan correspondent.

At the same time, in his words, the passed year was a year of active
work for the Armenian authorities on the threshold of the parliamentary
elections, particularly, new political forces were formed.

As for possible inner-political developments in 2007, Vagharshak
Haroutiunian stated that it is naive to hope for possibility of
holding just and transparent parliamentary elections as there is no
pre-condition for it.

Particularly, the ruling administration, understanding that the
overwhelming majority of the population, because of its too difficult
social position, will not vote for the authorities, will hardly
undertake just and transparent elections. In the Ex-Minister’s opinion,
everything will depend on the issue if the opposition will be able to
unite on the threshold of the elections for the National Assembly in
the spring of the current year. Otherwise, the voters will again and
more than in the past be disappointed in the opposition’s incapacity
to correct the existing situation.

ARMENIAN COMPANY OF CHILDREN’S PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS JOINTLY WITH ISRAELI CENTER FOR PSYCHICAL HEALTH IMPLEMENTS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF FIXED DISORDERS

Noyan Tapan
Jan 08 2007

YEREVAN, JANUARY 8, NOYAN TAPAN. Since 2006 the Armenian Company
of Children’s Psychiatrists and Psychologists jointly with the
Israeli Center of Psychical Health has been implementing scientific
research of fixed disorders and actions. Noyan Tapan correspondent was
informed about it by Chairman of the Armenian Company of Children’s
Psychiatrists and Psychologists, Doctor of Medical Sciences Maruk
Yeghian. He said that the reasons of this disease and new methods of
threatment should be determined by the results of the research. In
M.Yeghian’s words, nearly 200 persons have been examined in Armenia
with participation of Israeli specialists. It was mentioned that the
research results will be summed up during the coming months.

In M.Yeghian’s words, "this disease is widely spread among Jews and
Armenians," this is a complicated but curable disease.

AZERBAIJAN: STILL NO PUBLIC RESULTS FROM COUP INVESTIGATION
Rovshan Ismayilov

EurasiaNet, NY
Jan 8 2007

As the deadline draws closer for putting on trial two former ministers
suspected of plotting a coup against Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev, human rights activists and international observers are calling
for state investigators to release evidence to support the allegations.

Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev and Minister
of Health Ali Insanov were arrested in October 2005, just weeks
before parliamentary elections that were seen as a key test of the
government’s commitment to democratization. [For details, see the
Azerbaijan Election feature]. Under the law, the state’s case against
the two former ministers should be heard by a court no later than
April 2007.

With just over three months to go before that deadline, however,
uncertainty surrounds the investigations. No details have been released
about the state’s case against either of the two men.

Officials cite the need to preserve the investigation’s confidentiality
as the cause. Commenting on Farhad Aliyev, General Prosecutor
spokesperson Vugar Aliyev affirmed that the Criminal Procedures Code
allows suspects to be detained for up to 18 months while authorities
complete an investigation. "With this particular case, the delays
are related to the fact that some of the investigative actions must
be conducted abroad, and some witnesses are not in the country,"
the spokesman said.

A former Interior Ministry official on trial for kidnapping and murder
earlier has also fingered Farhad Aliyev as responsible for the March
2005 murder of journalist Elmar Huseynov, but the ex-minister has
denied the charges. Attention for that accusation has since largely
faded. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The General
Prosecutor’s office has denied a December report by the Azerbaijani
agency APA that ex-Health Minister Insanov will be charged only with
"economic crimes," but not with plotting an uprising.

Critics of the government’s investigatory practices have tended to
focus on Farhad Aliyev, rather than the 60-year-old Insanov, a founder
of the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party with a robust reputation among
many Azerbaijanis for corruption and mismanagement of the healthcare
system. The delay in bringing Aliyev to trial indicates that the state
cannot prove its case, the critics, many of them drawn from opposition
political circles, argue. Rather, they charge, political motives
and a squabble over business interests are driving the accusations
against Farhad and his brother, Rafig, the former head of state-run
oil company AzPetrol.

Jamil Hasanli, an opposition parliamentarian and head of the
Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Farhad and Rafig Aliyev,
argues that investigators’ inquiries go beyond the bounds of a coup
case. Hasanli claims that the property of close relatives of the
Aliyev brothers has been illegally seized. "All businesses that
enjoyed Farhad Aliyev’s support when he was a minister have been
‘invited’ to the Ministry of National Security, bribed, harassed,"
he charged. Though the ex-minister is in poor health, he continued,
Farhad Aliyev has not been allowed to see doctors provided by his
family. A committee of doctors and Ministry of Health officials
assembled by the National Security Ministry earlier stated that Aliyev
is in good health and does not require additional medical treatment.

Aliyev and Insanov were arrested following the October 2005 detention
of former Finance Minister Fikret Yusifov, whose testimony reportedly
prompted state law-enforcement agencies to start a coup case against
the other two ministers. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Yusifov, named by state prosecutors as a mediator between
Farhad Aliyev and Rasul Guliyev, the exiled head of the opposition
Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, was later convicted only for carrying
a gun. He was released from prison on November 9, after serving a year
in jail. An arrest order for Yusifov still remains "in force," however,
Azerbaijani media outlets quoted Deputy Chief Prosecutor Rustam Usubov
as saying, and the former finance minister cannot leave the country.

Another official arrested in connection with the coup investigation,
former presidential administration manager Akif Muradverdiyev was
sentenced to five years in prison in December on corruption charges.

Since the arrest of Aliyev and Insanov, supporters have petitioned
various international bodies to bring pressure on the government —
so far, with few results. A case charging the Azerbaijani government
with violating Aliyev’s right to a fair trial has been brought before
the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg,
but no hearing date has been set. Members of the US Senate and House of
Representatives have also sent questions and appeals to the Azerbaijani
government and the US Department of State on the topic.

But US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor Barry Lowenkron gave no indication that the coup investigation
played a major role in his talks with Azerbaijani officials during
a December visit to Baku. In his discussions, Lowenkron reportedly
stressed the need for greater press freedom in Azerbaijan, and
reiterated US interest in promoting a Nagorno-Karabakh peace
settlement. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Rights activists maintain that Farhad Aliyev and Insanov are actually
political prisoners; in Aliyev’s case, they argue that the minister
was arrested to put an end to his fight against business monopolies
run by rivals within President Ilham Aliyev’s administration. Some,
like Jamil Hasanli, go further, maintaining that the Russian security
services may have played a role in Aliyev’s arrest.

Azerbaijani officials, however, strongly deny that the arrest was
dictated by Moscow, or that Aliyev is the persecuted reformist that
his supporters portray him to be. Groups lobbying the US Congress
on behalf of the ex-minister are misrepresenting Farhad Aliyev as
a democrat and pro-Western politician, commented Tahir Kerimov,
a representative of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Washington, during a
December 2006 panel discussion on political prisoners in Azerbaijan
organized by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Washington, DC.

"Farhad Aliyev was one of the most criticized officials in the
opposition media for corruption," Kerimov noted.

Editor’s Note: Rovshan Ismayilov is a freelance journalist based
in Baku.