PRESS RELEASE
ARARAT CENTER
Contact: Armen Ayvazyan, PhD
Director, "Ararat" Center for Strategic Research
Yerevan, Armenia
+(37410) 274-833
[email protected]
www.ararat-cent er.org
English Translation of the Full Text of the First Lawsuit Against the
Denial of Genocide in Armenia
COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION OF KENTRON AND NORK-MARASH COMMUNITIES
PLAINTIFF : "Ararat Center for Strategic Research’ Non-Governmental
Organization
AUTHORIZED PERSON : Armen Ayvazyan
DEFENDANT: `Caucasus Institute’ Foundation
September 17, 2009
Yerevan, Armenia
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Claim to Compel Refutation of Publication Questioning Veracity of the
Genocide, Prohibiting the Use of the Word Genocide in Quotation Marks
and Compensation for Damage)
In 2008, the `Caucasus Institute’ Foundation (hereinafter referred to
as `Foundation’) published a Book in Yerevan titled `Caucasus
Neighborhood: Turkey and The South Caucasus’, ISBN 978-99941-2-220-2,
Russian version `Ð?авкР°Ð·Ñ?ко& #xD0;µ Ñ?оÑ?ед Ñ?Ñ?во: ТÑ?ÑÑ?Ð¸Ñ ? и ЮжнÑ?Ð& #xB9; Ð?авкÐ& #xB0;з’, ISBN
978-99941-2-180-9] (hereinafter `Book’). Pursuant to the Civil Code of
the Republic of Armenia, as well as the copyright notice in the Book,
the Foundation holds the exclusive copyright to these publications.
The editor of the Book is Aleksandr Iskandaryan – Director of
`Caucasus Institute’ Foundation – and the editorial board includes
Nina Iskandaryan, Sergey Minasyan and Vitali Kisin. Their legal status
with respect to the book is regulated by national legislation on
intellectual property and international treaties ratified by the
Republic of Armenia.
Particularly, according to Article 1119(2) of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Armenia:
`Publishers of encyclopedias, encyclopedic glossaries, periodical or
continuing collections of scholarly works, newspapers, magazines, and
other periodical publications shall have the exclusive rights to the
use of such publications’.
Article 1120 of the same Code states:
The holder of exclusive property rights may, for notification of his
rights, use the copyright sign which shall be placed on the original
or each copy of the work and consists of the following:
1) the Latin letter `C’ in a circle;
2) the name (or title) of the holder of the exclusive copyright;
3) the year of the first publication of the work.
2. The rightholder shall be deemed the person indicated in the
copyright sign, unless otherwise is proven.’
The book, inter alia, includes also anrticle entitled `Turkey-Armenia
relations: an eternal deadlock?’ authored by Aybars Görgülü ` a member
of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation of Istanbul
(`Article’), in which the author, speaking about the Armenian Genocide
committed in the Ottoman Empire and Western Armenia in 1893-1923,
disputes and puts in doubt this historical fact both in his explicit
statements, and by repeatedly (34 times) using the legally significant
term genocide in quotation marks.
Furthermore, in the English and Russian languages quotation marks are
put before and after the word, which is customarily used when the
author wishes to convey an ironical meaning or cast or express doubt
on meaning or use of the given word (e.g. see
, ):
Such use of quotation marks is a recognized and widely used practice
both in Armenia and abroad.
The book also contains Görgülü’s explicit denial of the Armenian
Genocide (page 127 of the English original):
`Turkey felt aggrieved that Armenia accused Ottoman Turkey of having
committed a ‘genocide’ about which serious doubts remain and intense
discussion is still going on.’
(page 133 of the English original)
`However, it should not be forgotten that once a specific parliament
identifies the terrible events of 1915 as ‘genocide’, the issue
becomes a fact in that particular country.’ (Görgülü himself put the
word `fact’ in italic.)
On the same page 133 Görgülü once more denies the fact of the Armenian Genocide:
`However, once the parliament recognized it, the French press started
almost unanimously to consider 1915 events as ‘genocide’.’
On the same page 133 Görgülü places doubt even on the legality and
legitimacy of the work carried out by the Armenian Diaspora for the
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide:
`Another dimension of the problem is deeply related with the
legitimacy of the Armenian Diaspora’s activities. The fact that the
Armenian government officially insists that Turkey acknowledge the
events of 1915 gives an additional legitimacy to the Diaspora
organizations. The Armenian Government does not have direct and full
control over the process of the international recognition of the
‘genocide’ issue.’
On page 137 of the English original Görgülü writes:
`Since recognizing the `Armenian genocide’ is not one of the
Copenhagen criteria, these allegations did not pose a problem while
starting negotiations with Turkey.’
On page 137 Görgülü decries the recognitions of the Armenian Genocide
in the international arena, by calling those adoption of unfounded
allegations of `genocide’:
`On the other hand, even the EP, let alone the parliaments of leading
EU member countries such as Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Italy
and Netherlands, adopted the ‘genocide’ allegations.’
On page 142 of the English original Görgülü writes:
`Neither Turkey will recognize the ‘genocide’ officially, nor will
Armenia compromise these allegations and it’s target of achieving
international recognition of ‘genocide’.’
In this article by Görgülü the author uses the expressions `’genocide’
claims’ and `’genocide’ allegations’ numerous times (refer to pages
124, 125, 127, 132, 134, 137, 142, 143 of the English original.
According to both the English and Russian versions of the Book, `The
volume is composed of analytical papers based on presentations made at
a conference in Istanbul on August 1-4, 2008, organized by CI
[`Caucasus Institute’]. The contributors are scholars from Turley,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South
Ossetia.’
In other words, the Book comprises articles that were presented to a
large audience at the international conference, during which Görgülü
Aybars, as a participant, has also presented his `analysis’ containing
the above-mentioned claims.
In selecting the conference participants and the articles for the
Book, the Foundation has not taken into consideration that the fact
that the articles are in contravention of the security and public
interests of the Republic of Armenia, are in conflict with the policy
adopted by Armenia, violate the rights, dignity and honor of the
victims of the Genocide, their legal successors and the whole Armenian
nation and insult the memory of those victims.
The selection of the participants for such conferences is generally
made based on the Abstracts of the materials to be presented by the
participants. It means that the Foundation approved the disputed
article, including anti-Armenian allegations contained therein and the
use of the word Genocide in quotation marks. The Foundation knew or
should have known that the disputed information violates the rights of
the Republic of Armenia. Nevertheless, it did not taken any measures
to preclude, avoid or rectify these violations. The Foundation also
has provided favorable conditions for such manipulation of the
Armenian Question and dissemination of disinformation in a manner
unfavorable for Armenia.
Thus, the Foundation committed numerous violations of norms and
principles of national and international law, as well as case legal
precedents and customary law.
I. VIOLATION OF A NUMBER OF PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION,
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PUBLIC ORDER
The Foundation has not considered the fact that such a publication on
the Armenian Genocide, as well as the use of the word Genocide in
quotation marks directly violates the rights and interests of the
Republic of Armenia, degrades the honor and dignity citizens of the
Republic of Armenia, as well as the whole Armenian nation. The use of
the word Genocide in quotation marks, i.e. disputing and casting doubt
on the occurrence of the Armenian genocide, violates a number of
principles of the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, public order
and international legal norms. Such a violation contradicts also the
international commitments constituting an integral part of the
national legislation of the Republic of Armenia, the obligation of the
fulfillment of which lies with the state authorities of the Republic
of Armenia.
According to Point 11 of the Declaration of Independence of Armenia
adopted on 23 August 1990:
`The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving
international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and
Western Armenia.’ Provisions enshrined in a number of normative legal
acts are aimed at the fulfillment of this commitment.
Particularly, the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia makes a
reference to the Declaration of Independence of Armenia adopted on 23
August 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Declaration), the preamble
of which proclaims:
`The Armenian People, recognizing as a basis the fundamental
principles of Armenian statehood and the national aspirations engraved
in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the
sacred pledge of its freedom ¬loving ancestors to the restorea
sovereign state, committed to the strengthening and prosperity of the
motherland, in order to ensure the freedom, general well being and
civic harmony of future generations, declaring their faithfulness to
universal values, hereby adopts the Constitution of the Republic of
Armenia.’
Thus, the Constitution rests on fundamental principles and national
aspirations engraved in the Declaration, which is based on the
provision obliging the Republic of Armenia to stand in support of the
task of achieving international recognition of the Armenian Genocide
in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.
Point 2.1 of the National Security Strategy of the Republic of Armenia
approved by the President’s Decree on Approving the National Security
Strategy of the Republic of Armenia on 7 February 2007 is aimed at the
fulfillment of this obligation engraved in the Declaration, which
states:
`Armenia aspires for the universal recognition and condemnation of
the Armenian Genocide, especially by Turkey, and sees it both as a
restoration of an historical justice and as a means to improve the
overall situation of mutual trust in the region, while also preventing
similar crimes in the future’
According to Point 3 of the given normative legal act defining and
coordinating the principal issues of state security:
`The wide range of issues concerning the Armenian Diaspora presents an
important characteristic of the National Security Strategy of the
Republic of Armenia. The Armenian Diaspora exceeds the overall
population of Armenia; it is dispersed all over the world and is
largely the result of the Genocide and forced deportations’.
Thus, the recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide are an
integral part of the policy and national security strategy of the
Republic of Armenia. Consequently, its denial, assuaging, expression
of any doubt of its occurrence, including the use of the word Genocide
in quotation marks, are violations against the national security,
public interests, values of the Armenian public, constitutional order
of the Republic of Armenia, as well as the rights and legitimate
interests of the persons interested in the recognition and
condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, including the citizens of the
Republic of Armenia.
The Genocide as an international crime towards humankind is condemned
by the international community and all civilized states and nations.
Moreover, it should be mentioned that the Armenian Genocide has been
already recognized by a number of countries, such as Argentina
(05.05.1993), Belgium (26.03.1998), Canada (21.04.2004), Chile
(05.06.2007), Cyprus (29.04.1982), France (29.01.2001), Greece
(25.04.1996), Italy (16.11.2000), Lithuania (15.12.2005), Lebanon
(03.04.1997), Kingdom of Netherlands (21.12.2004), Poland
(19.04.2006), Russia (14.04.1995Ã?.), Slovakia (30.11.2004Ã?.),
Switzerland (16.12.2003Ã?.), Uruguay (20.04.1965Ã?.), Vatican
(10.11.2000Ã?.), Venezuela (14.07.2005Ã?.), etc.
The Armenian Genocide has also been recognized by 43 States of the
United States of America. The European Parliament has adopted
resolutions (18.06.1987/A2-33/87/ and 28.01.2002 /A5-0028/), and the
Council of Europe has adopted a declaration (24.04.2001/Doc. 9056/) on
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, Uruguay and
Argentina have adopted laws, which criminalize the denial of the
Armenian Genocide. Under the given circumstances the Foundation should
have taken into account that any speech or publication of any material
that might put in doubt the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide or
otherwise deny or refute it is impermissible. Recognition,
condemnation and prevention of the genocide, including the Armenian
Genocide, by states and international organizations, in fact,
establish international practice, which should have also been taken
into account.
Furthermore, while the Armenian issue was being discussed by the
European Parliament, its Rapporteur Jan-Batist Rassin stated:
`The events, of which the Armenians of Turkey were victims during the
war years of 1915-1917, must be considered a genocide according to the
UN Convention against repression and on the prevention of the crime of
genocide.’ On June 18, 1987, the European Parliament adopted a
resolution recognizing the genocide of the Armenians…’
["Les événements dont les Arméniens de Turquie ont été victims durant
les années de guerre 1915-1917, doivent être considérés comme un
génocide au sens de la Convention des Nations Unies contre la
répression et la prévention du crime contre le génocide". Le 18 juin
1987, le Parlement européen a finalement adopté une résolution
reconnaissant le génocide des Arméniens¦’]
II. VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PRECENDENTS AND CUSTOMARY LAW,
DISREGARD OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE
The Foundation has also disregarded international judicial practice,
applying various sanctions and damages against persons for Armenian
Genocide denial.
For example. on 9 March 2007, the Court of Lausanne of Switzerland
sentenced the leader of the Party of Turkish Workers Dogu Perinchek to
90 days of provisional imprisonment and sentenced him to pay 3000
Swiss francs. Parinchek has been found guilty of racial discrimination
for his public statements denying the Armenian Genocide. Similarly, on
7 May 2005, later 18 September, Dogu Perinchek has announced publicly
that the Armenian Genocide is an "international lie’ [French:
`mensonge international’ (citation by the court], and on 22 July of
the same year, he has said the `Armenian question has never existed’
and that `that [the genocide] has never existed’:
`He confirmed, in all three times, that the genocide of the Armenians
never existed, that we are dealing with an international lie.’
[`il a affirmé, en tout cas par trois fois, que le génocide des
Arméniens n’avait jamais existé; qu’il s’agissait d’un mensonge
international’].
`Dogu Perincek admitted that there were massacres, but they were
justified by the law of war.’
[ibid. `Dogu PERINCEK admet qu’il y a eu des massacres, mais les
justifie au nom du droit de la guerre’.]
Perincek has also noted that `deportations did occur, however, these
were not accompanied by genocide.’
`He also admitted that the Turkish Ottoman Empire displaced thousands
of Armenians¦ but absolutely contests the genocidal character of these
deportations.’
[`Il admet aussi que l’Empire turc ottoman a fait déplacer des
milliers l’Arméniens¦.., mais conteste absolument le caractère
génocidaire de ces deportations.’]
Moreover, on the same grounds in 2008 the Swiss court ruled that three
representatives of the Party of Turkish Workers were guilty of racial
discrimination after having claimed that the Armenian Genocide was an
`international lie.’ They were ordered to pay penalties.
The genocide has been recognized as a crime on December 9, 1948, by
the adoption of the UN Convention on `Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide’, the Preamble and Article 1 of which proclaim:
`The Contracting Parties, having considered the declaration made by
the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I)
dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international
law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and
condemned by the civilized world, recognizing that at all periods of
history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and being
convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious
scourge, international co-operation is required, hereby agree as
hereinafter provided:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in
time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law
which they undertake to prevent and to punish.’
The above-mentioned publications of the Foundation also contradict the
principles of international customary law. Article 21(2) and (3) of
the Law on Legal Acts provides for:
§2. The principles and norms of international law that have obtained
universal recognition, as well as the international treaties of the
Republic of Armenia, shall be considered the constituent part of the
legal system of the Republic of Armenia. The laws and other legal acts
of the Republic of Armenia shall comply with the universal norms and
principles of international law.
§3. The norms and principles of international law, which are equally
binding upon all states, including the Republic of Armenia, shall be
considered to have obtained universal recognition’.
Thus, a number of provisions of international law explicitly proscribe
the denying or otherwise refuting genocide, impose liability not only
for perpetration, but also for the denial of genocide, compel the
states to take timely and effective measures to criminalize the
committing of genocide and its denial, as well as to prevent it.
Since the second half of the previous century the analysis of the
negative consequences of denial of the genocide became a special issue
of discussion in the international law. As the December 2, 1998, press
release of the UN General Assembly (GA/9523) states:
`¦many thousands of innocent human beings continue to be victims of genocide¦’,
`Regretfully, denial, which had become an integral part of genocide,
often reinforced the sense of insecurity, abandonment, and betrayal’.
In discussing the prevention of genocide, `Genocide Watch,’ a
well-respected international organization focusing on the problem of
genocide, states:
`DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is
among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The
response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or
national courts.’
The Article 2 of the above-mentioned UN Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter referred to as
the Convention) defines the concept of genocide. It is worth noting
that the definition of the term genocide was given by Rafayel Lemkin,
Doctor of Jurisprudence, who has defined it by basing it also on the
fact of the Armenian Genocide. What’s more, Rafayel Lemkin is also the
author of the draft Convention, in the Preparatory Report (an
inseparable part of the Convention) of which he makes a direct
reference to the Armenian Genocide.
Consequently, while interpreting the concept of genocide in respect to
the case of Dogu Perinchek, the Court of Lausanne with ample
justification has indicated that Article 261 of the Criminal Code of
Switzerland applies the word genocide generally and not only with
respect to the Holocaust of the Jews. Moreover, the Court refers to
the drafting of the mentioned article, in particular the official
communication of the National Council (Conseil National (fr.)), where
the legislator has made a direct reference to the Convention and cited
the Armenian and Kurdish Genocides as examples (BOCN 1993, p. 1076).
Based on foregoing, the Court reached the conclusion that the Armenian
Genocide served as an example for the drafting of the above-mentioned
article [Rapport Combi]). The Court also affirmed that there is no
need for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Court of
International Justice, since the Convention makes a direct reference
to the Armenian Genocide. According to the Court, the said fact shows
that the Armenian Genocide is no longer subject to dispute, since it
has been implicitly, if not explicitly, and internationally recognized
by having formed the basis of a fundamental international legal act.
[(Citation from the Court Act) `Ainsi, si l’on se réfère au Bulletin
officiel du Conseil national, on constate que le législateur s’est
explicitement référé à la Convention internationale pour la répression
du crime et du génocide du 9 décembre 1948 en citant, à titre
d’exemple, le génocide des Kurdes et des Arméniens (BOCN 1993, p.
1076). On peut donc retenir qu’historiquement, le génocide des
Arméniens a servi d’exemple au législateur lors de ses travaux visant
à l’élaboration de l’art. 261 bis CP (rapport Combi)’, `En se référant
expressé ment au génocide des Arméniens et des Kurdes, le législateur a
aussi voulu montrer qu’il n’était pas nécessaire que le génocide soit
reconnu par une Cour internationale de justice’,’On peut déduire de
cette phrase qu’il faut et il suffit que le génocide soit Reconnu.’]
According to Article 2 of the Convention:
`In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
¢ (a) Killing members of the group;
¢ (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
¢ (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
part;
¢ (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
¢ (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’
This definition of genocide gained its application and interpretation
in the international customary law. The denial of genocide is
recognized as an inseparable part of genocide, which is also
criminalized in a number of countries. Thus, genocide is also
prohibited by international customary law, which imposes additional
obligations on both states and individuals. In reality, the definition
of genocide has wider interpretation in international customary law,
which differentiates it from the normative definition. For example,
the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia, in defining the
concept of genocide, made reference to international customary law,
the meaning and content of the Convention, established legal
precendents, as well as opinio juris doctrinal interpretations (see
`International Law’, A. Cassese, Oxford, 2005, p. 444).
Specialists in international relations and lawyers involved in the
studies of genocide unanimously acknowledge that the denial of
genocide is the ultimate form of degrading the self-esteem of any
racial, gender or ethnic group, propagating hatred, as well as the
final stage of carrying out genocide.
Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize-winner Elie Wiesel has repeatedly
called Turkey’s campaign to cover up the Armenian genocide a double
killing, since it strives to kill the memory of the original
atrocities’. The internationally renowned theorist and philosopher
Bernard-Henry Levi states:
`¦ Deniers are not merely expressing an opinion; they are perpetrating a crime.’
The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) underscores
that `the denial is a continuation of the genocide, because consistent
efforts are being directed at the destruction of the victim group
psychologically and culturally, attempting to deny its members even
the memory of their murdered relatives.’
President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars
Gregory Stanton writes:
"Denial is the final stage of genocide. It is a continuing attempt to
destroy the victim group psychologically and culturally, to deny its
members even the memory of the murders of their relatives. That is
what the Turkish government today is doing to Armenians around the
world."
These doctrinal interpretations and established international
practices have been legally enacted in the laws of a number of states.
Particularly starting in the 21st century, a number of states have
criminalized not only the perpetration, but also the denial of
genocide. The denial of genocide has been also recognized in legal
acts of the European Union. For example, on Novermber 28th, 2008, the
Council of Justice and Internal Affairs of the European Union has
adopted a Framework Decision on certain forms and expressions of
racism and xenophobia, according to which the Member States should
bring their national legislations into compliance with the
requirements of that decision. The provisions of the legal act
stipulate that the denier of genocide should bear criminal liability.
Thus, the criminalization of the denial of the genocide has been
enacted in European law as a norm and has become international
customary law, i.e. a constituent part of international law.
Taking into account this fact, it is necessary to touch upon the issue
of responsibility of the state. Points 138, 139, 140 of the 2005 World
Summit Concluding Act adopted by the UN General Assembly on 15
September 2005 stipulate:
(([A/60/L.1] 2005 World Summit Outcome) `Each individual State has the
responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility
entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement,
through appropriate and necessary means.’)
The Armenian Genocide is distinguished from other genocides committed
in the 20th century by the fact that it continues to be denied
unjustifiably and with gross violations of the mentioned international
norms, which is, of course, the result of the Turkish propaganda
machine. Armenian and foreign scholars involved in the study of this
dark page of human history have concluded that Turkey’s denial is a
continuation of the act of genocide, which directly affects the
national security of the Republic of Armenia.
Particularly the denial of the Armenian Genocide (including through
putting it in doubt) damages the vital interests of the national
security of the Republic of Armenia as follows:
ï?§ The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the continuation and integral
part of the genocidal policy adopted by Turkey against the Armenians;
i.e. it is implemented within the framework of a long-term general
plan to ultimately destroy the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian
nation and is an explicit and dangerous hostile act against vital
interests of Armenia.
ï?§ By denying the Armenian Genocide, Turkey is trying to kill the
historical memory of Armenians, deprive them from political experience
achieved through an ineffable and immense price and exclude the
adoption of correct strategic decisions by the authorities of the
Republic of Armenia in the field of foreign policy and, in particular,
in building relations with Turkey.
ï?§ The denial of the Armenian Genocide is aimed at ratification and
legalization of the consequences of the Genocide, particularly,
expropriation and deportation of Armenians from their homes, as well
as acquisition and distortion of the cultural heritage of the Armenian
people by the Turks. All these create very unfavorable conditions for
the existence of the Armenian nation politically, economically and
ethno-psychologically; weaken the collective immunity and endurance of
Armenians; deprive Armenians of the opportunity to properly evaluate
their national values.
ï?§ By denying the Armenian Genocide, Turkey maligns the Republic of
Armenia and the whole Armenian nation, impertinently accusing them of
propagating lies, racial enmity and hatred. Thus, Turkey and its
servants compromise the Republic of Armenia at the international
level, insult the honor and the national dignity of the whole Armenian
nation.
Consequently, legal norms safeguarding the right of honor and dignity
are applicable also in this case, which are enshrined in the European
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
adopted on 4 November 1950, the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights adopted on 10 December 1948, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, as well as the
legal precedence of the European Court of Human Rights.
Thus, Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia states:
`The human being, his/her dignity and the fundamental human rights and
freedoms are an ultimate value’:
Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia states:
`Human dignity shall be respected and protected by the state as an
inviolable foundation of human rights and freedoms’.
Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia states:
`Everyone shall be obliged to honor the Constitutions and laws, to
respect the rights, freedoms and dignity of others’:
With respect to international treaties, Article 1 of the UN Universal
Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 December 1948 proclaims:
`All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights’:
And the preamble of the UN Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms adopted on 4 November 1950 proclaims:
`The governments signatory hereto, Considering the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 10th December 1948; Considering that this
Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition
and observance of the Rights therein declared¦.Have agreed as
follows:’
This stipulates that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms is based on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, including the first Article thereof, which is also
binding upon the Member States.
The preamble of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) proclaims:
`The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in
accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United
Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing
that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human
person, Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and
political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved
if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and
political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United
Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and freedoms, Realizing that the individual, having duties to
other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a
responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant, Agree upon the following
articles’.
This Covenant stipulates that the recognition of human dignity is the
foundation of freedom, justice and universal peace in the world, the
securing of which is also binding upon states.
With respect to the legal precedence of the European Court of Human
Rights, according to the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, (11.07.2002)) `¦
the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity (…),
which is guaranteed particularly by Article 8 of the Convention.’
Publishing the above-referenced Article, the Foundation violated and
shows disregard for the rights to human dignity of Armenian victims of
Genocide. In its role as organizer and disseminator of such harmful
disinformation, the Foundation contributed to the implementation of
anti-Armenian strategy as an intermediary. For this reason, with a
view to preventing and condemning the phenomenon of genocide, any
denial of the Armenian Genocide must be prevented, including referring
to the genocide in quotation marks. Condemnation of the Foundation’s
wrongdoing in this case will serve as a precedent for remedying this
harm and preventing future violations.
In addition to the general harm caused by the Foundation’s wrongdoing,
its actions also directly violate the legitimate interests and rights
of the Plaintiff; i.e. "Ararat Center for Strategic Research", as
provided under Republic of Armenian law and Plaintiff’s Charter. Under
its Charter, the objectives of Ararat Centre for Strategic Research
include:
1. Neutralization of Azerbaijan-Turkish large scale propaganda at the
international level, consistently and continuously propagate the
positions of the Republics of Armenia and Artsakh.
2. Seeking solutions contributing to the strengthening of
Armenia-Diaspora cooperation and development of pan-national unified
doctrines.
The Foundation’s wrongful actions injury the honor and dignity of
every Armenian.
Under Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Armenia "A
citizen shall have the right to demand in court the retraction of
communications impugning on his honor, dignity, or business
reputation, unless the person who disseminated such communications
proves that they correspond to reality." `If the aforementioned
communications are contained in a document emanating from an
organization, such a document shall be subject to correction or
retraction. The procedure for retraction in other cases shall be
established by the court’.
According to point 4 of the same Article, `A citizen with respect to
whom communications have been disseminated impugning his honor,
dignity, or business reputation, has the right together with the
retraction of such information also to demand compensation for the
damages caused by their dissemination’.
Pursuant to Article 17(1) of the Civil Code of the Republic of
Armenia, `A person whose right has been violated may demand full
compensation for the losses caused to it unless law or contract
provides for compensation of losses in lesser amount. Losses mean the
expenses that the person whose right was violated made or must make to
reinstate the right that was violated. If the person who has violated
a right has received income as thereby, the person whose right has
been violated has the right to demand compensation along with other
losses for forgone benefit in a measure not less than such income’.
Here, `the information that does not correspond to reality’ is the
above-mentioned allegations that deny or cast doubt on the occurrence
of the Genocide, and/or are fabrications or distortions of reality.
The moral damage caused by the Foundation has a number of components,
as set forth below, and for which commensurate compensation is
demanded and due:
1. Nature of the Information
The publication disseminated by the Foundation immediately relates to
the national security of the Republic of Armenia, Armenia-Diaspora
relations, international ranking of Armenia, memory of the victims of
the Armenian Genocide, the rights of their legal successors, the whole
Armenian nation, every Armenian, including the rights of the citizens
of the Republic of Armenia, their honor and dignity, and
implementation of statutory objectives and rights of the Plaintiff.
Thus, the publication is information which is a patent violation of
the interests and rights of the Republic of Armenia and the whole
Armenian nation.
2. Scope of Dissemination of Disinformation at International
Conference and in Print
The aforementioned disinformation was disseminated not only in the
published books of the Foundation, but also during the international
conference organized by the Foundation. The Armenian Genocide was
explicitly disputed and denied before the multinational audience from
different countries. Then, the same allegations appeared in the books
published by the Foundation in English and Russian and were
disseminated abroad. The conference and its publications were made
available also on the website of the Foundation. Such anti-Armenian
propaganda was disseminated in expert, political, student and general
public circles.
In short, the Foundation’s wrongful actions had world-wide impact.
Consequently, the remedy must be commensurate in scope and scale to
the inflicted harm.
3. Social Consequences of the Person whose Rights are Violated
Dissemination of the above referenced publications containing
misinformation caused materially injured and impeded the statutory
objectives and operation of the Plaintiff, since the statutory
objectives of the Plaintiff include neutralization of
Azerbaijan-Turkish large-scale propaganda at the international level.
To counteracting the harmful effects of dissemination of the
allegations denying the Armenian Genocide, in fact, the Plaintiff will
spend even more effort and resources as the Foundation spent for their
dissemination. Dissemination of those allegations caused damage also
to the vital and public interests of the Republic of Armenia, causing
injury to every citizen of Armenia and the whole Armenian nation.
4. The Measure of Damages should be commensurate with the
Foundation’s failure to prevent or mitigate the harm it has caused.
To date, the Foundation has not taken any actions to prevent further
dissemination of the disinformation. Moreover, the Foundation
contributed to their dissemination, which means that no actions were
taken for the protection of rights, i.e. no actions were taken for
retraction of the publication. Consequently, taking into account the
harm caused by its failure to prevent or mitigate the harm, the
compensation of damages should be reasonable and proportional to the
harm cause.
5. Extent of Liability of the Person Inflicting the Damage
The Foundation is registered and operates in the Republic of Armenia.
Thus, it not only enjoys the rights and privileges under the
legislation of the Republic of Armenia, but also has duties and
responsibilities, among which are compliance with Republic of Armenia
law. The Foundation, by dissemination of disinformation related to the
vital interests of the Republic of Armenia and the whole Armenian
nation, has failed in its duties as a foundation to promote the public
welfare and violated Republic of Armenian law.
6. Acceptance of the Level of Reinstatement of Violated Rights By the Offender
To date, the Foundation has not taken any measures to remedy or
mitigate the injury caused by its tortuous actions. On the contrary,
it persists in its wrongdoing, perpetuating and exacerbating the harm.
7. The Actions Taken by the Offender for the Refutation and Response
Before the Start of Judicial Proceedings
To date, the Foundation has not publicly retracted disinformation it
has disseminated.
8. Bona Fide Fulfillment of Obligations by the Offender
The Foundation has not in good faith fulfilled its obligations under
Republic of Armenia and international law, thus, the Foundation is
obliged to make commensurate compensation for the moral damage it
caused. Thus, taking into account these criteria, the Foundation
inflicted moral damage in the amount of 20,000,000 (twenty million)
AMD. Not intending to profit from the judicial defense of rights,
reduced compensation in the amount of a symbolic 1(one) AMD will be
deemed acceptable.
III. JUDICIAL PRACTICE FOR DAMAGE COMPENSATION
It is worth mentioning that a similar case was reviewed by the French
Court. Thus, the Court in respect with the case of Forum of Armenian
Association in France, International League against Racism and
Anti-Semitism vs Bernard Lewis adopted a judgment ordering Bernard
Lewis to pay one franc as moral damages and publish a retraction of
his statements regarding the Armenian Genocide in the `Le Monde’
newspaper, which he had made in an interview with the same newspaper.
`…by such remarks, Bernard Lewis has disputed the existence of the
Armenian genocide¦ and that, by doing so, he committed the tort for
which compensation could be claimed, because of the very serious
injury he inflicted on the memory and respect owed to the survivors
and their families’.
The Paris Court of First Instance passed a judgment stating:
`¦the truth of that event was accepted by the United Nations on August
29, 1985 and by the European Parliament on June 18, 1987.’
Thus, based on the foregoing and pursuant to the provisions of the
National Security Strategy of the Republic of Armenia, requirements of
international law and Articles 82 and 87 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of the Republic of Armenia:
The Plaintiff Respectfully Requests that the Court:
1. Compel the Defendant to publicly retract the false information
reflected in the Book `Caucasus Neighborhood: Turkey and The South
Caucasus’ published by the `Caucasus Institute’ Foundation in 2008 and
disseminate retraction in `Hayastani Hanrapetutyun’ and `Azg’ daily
newspapers, `Golos Armenii’ Russian-language newspaper and the main
news broadcastings of `H1′, `Shant’ and "Armenia" broadcasting
companies, which broadcast also on satellite, by determining the order
of the public retraction by the court decision
2. Prohibit any further use of the word genocide in quotation marks
and further dissemination of all copies of the same Book under
disposition of the Defendant.
3. Order payment of symbolic damages of one dram for the moral damage caused.
Find Enclosed:
1. A copy of the Statement of Claim,
2. Receipts of state fees,
3. A copy of the state registration certificate (1 page, 1 copy),
4. A copy of the passport (1 page, 1 copy),
5. Copies of relevant pages of the books (…pages, 1 copy),
6. A copy of relevant pages of the Charter (…pages, 1 copy).
http://www.answers.com/topic/quotation-mark
http://www.gramota.ru
www.hayq.org