THE OSCE DEMAND WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONDITION OF
ARMENIANS IN GEORGIA
A1+
25-01-2005
On January 24, 2005, the Council of Europe Parliament Congress adopted
a resolution about the responsibilities of Georgia and their carrying
out.
In the resolution the steps of Georgia taken for carrying out their
responsibilities are appreciated and in a number of cases new dates
are made clear. According to Agency A-info, in Georgia’s
responsibilities reconsidered by OSCE there are those which have
direct connection to the problems of Armenians in Javaxk and Georgia
on the whole. These responsibilities are: a)
Before September 2005 to sign and ratify the European Charter of the
Local Languages and those of Minorities and the European Circle
Convention on Transboundary Cooperation. b)
Before September 2005 to ratify the Circle Convention about the
Defense of National Minorities. c)
As for self-government, to make a whole of the administrative reforms
before the next elections of local authorities and to guarantee that
they will take place according to the European Charter of Local
Authorities. d)
In the context of the Georgian Administrative reforms to reconsider
the recently adopted model of Agarian self-government according to the
point ofview of the Venice Committee. e)
As for Mesxet population, to create immediately juridical,
administrative and political conditions to start the process of their
return, with the aim of fulfilling it in 2011. f)
This resolution adopted by OSCE comes from the December 2004 report of
the OSCE Monitoring group. Let us remind you that in October 2004 a
session was carried out by the above mentioned group which had
received a memorandum from the Council of Armenian Social Organization
of Samtsxe-Javaxk, mentioning, that the carrying out of the
responsibilities mentioned in the first 3 points by Georgia `will
contribute greatly to the improvement of the grave situation in
Samtsxe-Javaxk `.

COLLISION OF IDEAS IN OSCE
A1+
25-01-2005
The Armenian delegation to the Council of Europe finds the resolution
about the Karabakh conflict adopted today extremely negative. As Armen
Roustamyan mentioned in his report, the Report only does not
correspond to its aim – to avoid the use of force, but moreover –
it sets Azerbaijan free.
According to Roustamyan, the report will create new difficulties in
the conflict and will no how contribute to its settlement. During the
discussion of the report, when 4 members of the Armenian delegation
made speech – Shavarsh Kocharyan, Armen Roustamyan, Tigran Torosyan,
and Artashes Gegamyan, two tendencies were noticeable. The Armenian
party tried to stress the right of self-determination, proving that
the insertion Karabakh into Azerbaijan by force will cause new
tensions and bloodshed.
The Azerbaijani delegation did everything in order not to introduce
any changes in the draft resolution and it succeeded. François
Rogeblois from the European National party, representative of the
French delegation, indirectly supported the Armenian point of
view. `The borders are the heritageof the past’, said the French
delegate, `stability in the region must be founded on the right of
self-determination’. Besides, several delegates from France, Greece,
and Italy underlined that the participation of the Karabakh
representatives is necessary in the negotiation process, for the
settlement of the conflict is impossible without the participation of
the people.
It is also worth mentioning that the delegates of Russia did not make
speech.
However, the majority of the delegates thought that the David
Atkinson’s report is a `balanced’ approach to the problem. The
resolution is adopted, which can be ground for the Armenian party to
reconsider the strategy in the field of foreign policy.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
January 26, 2005
ARMENIA’S ECONOMY DISCUSSED AT A CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
On 15 – 16 January, Washington, D.C. hosted a conference on Armenia’s
economy organized by Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG).
The Conference, entitled Income Distribution and Social Safety Net, garnered
participation of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, US State
Department and other agencies, US and Armenian NGOs, research and expert
groups.
The speakers of the Conference included the WB experts, economists,
representatives of Armenian Diaspora involved in education, R&D, commercial
and state institutions of the US, students. The Conference discussed
prospects of Armenia’s economic growth and development, the country’s
macroeconomic policies, poverty level and income distribution, reforms in
the healthcare and social security sectors, services provided by public and
private sectors, Armenia’s foreign trade and regional cooperation issues and
Armenia-Diaspora economic cooperation.
Armenia’s Ambassador to the US H.E. Arman Kirakossyan, AIPRG Executive
Director David Grigoryan, President of the American University of Armenia
Harutyun Armenyan welcomed the Conference participants in their opening
remarks. The keynote address was delivered by Chief Economic Advisor to the
President of Armenia Vahram Nercissiantz who introduced Armenia’s current
economic and political developments, reflected on causes of certain
drawbacks in the country’s economic performance and solutions proposed to
overcome these problems. He further explored the importance of increased
volumes of domestic and foreign investments and continued economic reform.

Resolution 1416 (2005)[1]
A1+
25-01-2005
The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE
Minsk Conference 1. The Parliamentary Assembly regrets that, more than
a decade after the armed hostilities started, the conflict over the
Nagorno-Karabakh region remains unsolved. Hundreds of thousands of
people are still displaced and live in miserable
conditions. Considerable parts of the territory of Azerbaijan are
still occupied by Armenian forces and separatist forces are still in
control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
2. The Assembly expresses its concern that the military action, and
the widespread ethnic hostilities which preceded it,led to large-scale
ethnic expulsion and the creation of mono-ethnic areas which resemble
the terrible concept of ethnic cleansing. The Assembly reaffirms that
independence and secession ofa regional territory from a state may
only be achieved through a lawful and peaceful process based on
democratic support by the inhabitants of such territory and not in the
wake of an armed conflict leading to ethnic expulsion and the de facto
annexation of such territory to another state. The Assembly reiterates
that the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes
a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the
Council of Europe and reaffirms the right of displaced persons from
the area of conflict to return to their homes safely and with dignity.
3. The Assembly recalls Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993)
and 884 (1993) of the United Nations Security Council and urges the
parties concerned to comply with them, in particular by refraining
from any armed hostilities and by withdrawing military forces from any
occupied territories. The Assembly also aligns itself with the demand
expressed in Resolution 853 (1993) of the United Nations Security
Council and thus urges all member states to refrain from the supply of
any weapons and munitions which might lead to an intensification of
the conflict or the continued occupation of territory.
4. The Assembly recalls that both Armenia and Azerbaijan committed
themselves upon their accession to the Council of Europe in January
2001 to use only peaceful means for settling the conflict, by
refraining from any threat of using force against their neighbours. At
the same time, Armenia committed itself to use its considerable
influence over Nagorno-Karabakh to foster a solution to the
conflict. The Assembly urges both Governments to comply with these
commitments and refrain from using armed forces against each other as
well as from propagating military action.
5. The Assembly recalls that the Council of Ministers of the
Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) agreed in
Helsinki in March 1992to hold a conference in Minsk in order to
provide for a forum for negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the
conflict. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the former Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation,
Sweden, Turkey and the United States of America agreed at that time to
participate in this Conference. The Assembly calls on these states to
step up their efforts to achieve the peaceful resolution of the
conflict and invites their national delegations to the Assembly to
report annually to the Assembly on the action of their governments in
this respect. For this purpose, the Assembly asks its Bureau to create
an Ad hoc Committee with inter alia the heads of these national
delegations.
6. The Assembly pays tribute to the tireless efforts of the Co-Chairs
of the Minsk Group and the Personal Representative of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office,in particular for having achieved a cease-fire in
May 1994 and having monitored the observance of this cease-fire since
then. The Assembly calls on the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs to take
immediate steps to conduct speedy negotiations for the conclusion of a
political agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict, the
implementation of which will eliminate major consequences of the
conflict for all parties and permit the convening of the Minsk
Conference. The Assembly calls on Armenia and Azerbaijan to make use
of the OSCE Minsk Process and actively submit to each other via the
Minsk Group their constructive proposals for the peaceful settlement
of the conflict in accordance with the relevant norms and principles
of international law.
7. The Assembly recalls that Armenia and Azerbaijan are signatory
parties to the Charter of the United Nations and, in accordance with
Article 93, paragraph 1 of the Charter, ipso facto parties to the
Statute of the International Court of Justice. Therefore, the Assembly
suggests that if the negotiationsunder the auspices of the Co-Chairs
of the Minsk Group fail, Armenia and Azerbaijan should consider using
the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36,
paragraph 1 of the Court’s Statute.
8. The Assembly calls on Armenia and Azerbaijan to foster political
reconciliation among themselves by stepping up bilateral
inter-parliamentary co-operation within the Assembly as well as in
other forums such as the meetings of the Speakers of the Parliaments
of the Caucasian Four. It recommends that both delegations should meet
during each part-session of the Assembly to review progress on such
reconciliation.
9. The Assembly calls on the Government of Azerbaijan to
establishcontacts without preconditions with the
politicalrepresentatives of both communitiesfrom the Nagorno-Karabakh
region regarding the future status of the region. It is prepared to
provide facilities for such contacts in Strasbourg, recalling that it
did so in the form of a hearing on previous occasions with Armenian
participation.
10. Recalling its Recommendation 1570 (2002) on the situation of
refugees and displaced persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the
Assembly calls on all member and observer states to provide
humanitarian aid and assistance to the hundreds of thousands of people
displaced as a consequence of the armed hostilities and the expulsion
of ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan and ethnic Azerbaijanis from
Armenia.
11. The Assembly condemns any expression of hatred portrayed in the
media of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Assembly calls on Armenia and
Azerbaijan to foster reconciliation, confidence-building and mutual
understanding among their peoples through schools, universities and
the media. Without such reconciliation, hatred and mistrust will
prevent stability in the region and may lead to new violence. Any
sustainable settlement must be preceded by and embedded in such
reconciliation processes.
12. The Assembly calls on the Secretary General of the Council of
Europe to draw up an action plan for specific support to Armenia and
Azerbaijan targeted at mutual reconciliation processes and to take
this resolution into accountin deciding on action concerning Armenia
and Azerbaijan.
13. The Assembly calls on the Congress of Local and Regional
Authorities of the Council of Europe to assist locally elected
representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan in establishing mutual
contacts and inter-regional co-operation.
14. The Assembly resolves to analyse the conflict settlement
mechanisms existing within the Council of Europe, in particular the
European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, in order
to provide its member states with better mechanisms for the peaceful
settlement of bilateral conflicts as well as internal disputes
involving local or regional territorial communities or authorities
which may endanger human rights, stability and peace.
15. The Assembly resolves to continue monitoring on a regular basis
the peaceful resolution of this conflict and decides to revert to
considering this issue at its first part-session in 2006.
[1] Assembly debate on 25 January 2005 (2nd Sitting) (see Doc. 10364,
report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr
Atkinson). Text adopted by the Assembly on 25 January 2005 (2nd
Sitting).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Recommendation 1690 (2005)[1]
A1+
25-01-2005
The conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region dealt with by the OSCE
Minsk Conference
1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1416 (2005) on
the conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference and recommends
that the Committee of Ministers:
i. urge the parties concerned to comply with the United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and
884 (1993), in particular by refraining from any armed hostilities and
by withdrawing military forces from all occupied territories of
Azerbaijan;
ii. monitor the compliance by Armenia and Azerbaijan with the United
Nations Security Council Resolutions and the decisions of the OSCE
Council of Ministers on this conflict and to report to the Assembly on
the outcomes of this monitoring;
iii. report to the Assembly on the efforts undertaken by member states
for the peaceful settlement of the conflict in accordance with the
Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council including whether
member states refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions
which might lead to an intensification of the conflict or the
continued occupation of territory in violation of Resolution 853
(1993) of the United Nations Security Council;
iv. recalling its Recommendation 1251 (1994) on the conflict in
Nagorno-Karabakh, place experts at the disposal of Armenia and
Azerbaijan who could help draw up a political status for
Nagorno-Karabakh, if they so wish;
v. allocate resources for an action plan of specific
confidence-building measures for Armenia and Azerbaijan;
vi. allocate resources for specific training programmes for teachers
and journalists from both countries aimed at better mutual
understanding, tolerance and reconciliation;
vii. allocate resources for specific action by the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance concerning both countries, in
particular with regard to educational institutions and the public
media;
viii. instruct its competent steering committee to analyse how far the
European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes reflects
the current requirements of conflict settlement among member states of
the Council of Europe and where it should be revised in order to
provide an adequate instrument for the peaceful settlement of disputes
between the member states of the Council of Europe;
ix. take Resolution 1416 (2005) into account when deciding on action
concerning both countries;
x. forward Resolution 1416 (2005) and this Recommendation to the
governments of member states with a view to supporting them
nationally, bilaterally and internationally.
[1] Assembly debate on 25 January 2005 (2nd Sitting) (see Doc.10364,
report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr
Atkinson). Text adopted by the Assembly on 25 January 2005 (2nd
Sitting).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MAJLIS SPEAKER MEETS ARMENIAN MINISTER, SAYS IRAN MINORITIES HAVE EQUAL
RIGHTS
IRNA web site
25 Jan 05
Tehran, 25 January: Majlis Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel said here
Tuesday (25 January) religious minorities in Iran’s legislative body
have five representatives who enjoy equal rights like all Muslims.
In his meeting with Armenian Minister of Social Welfare Agvan
Vardanyan, he said that Armenian scholars, linguists and Iranologists
have had special status for Iranian scholars and Yerevan is considered
as one of the leading Iranology centre in the region.
“We do believe that the two countries, given their historical,
cultural and geographic commonalties, should make utmost efforts to
promote mutual relations in line with the national interests of the
two countries,” he added.
He termed the Armenians residing in Iran as noble and artistic people
who have no social problem in the country rather, they coexist with
their Muslim brothers and sisters.
Elsewhere, Haddad-Adel expressed hope that the Karabakh crisis would
be settled peacefully, so tranquillity and stability would be restored
in the region.
He noted that the governments of Iran and Armenia have managed to
recognize their needs and potentials and opened new chapters for
mutual cooperation.
The Armenian minister, for his part, termed Iran as a great, stable
and powerful partner for Yerevan and expressed his satisfaction with
high level of political and trade relations between the two countries.
“Iran enjoys thousand years of history and civilization and no threat
could backtrack Iran from its own path,” he added.
Referring to the upcoming presidential elections in Iran, he expressed
hope that Iran could take step towards further development.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
January 26, 2005
Deputy Minister Ruben Shugarian received EU Special Representative for the
South Caucasus Ambassador Heikki Talvitie
On 25 January, Deputy Minister Ruben Shugarian received European Union’s
Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Ambassador Heikki Talvitie
who is in Armenia in the framework of a regional visit.
The parties discussed EU’s New Neighborhood policy for the South Caucasus
and Action plan to be prepared under this new framework.
EU Ambassador expressed confidence that Armenia – EU Action plan would be
finally drafted in 2005 and adopted by both sides in 2006. The parties
agreed that along with the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between
Armenia and European Union, this Action plan would become a useful tool for
Armenia’s further European integration.
Ambassador Talvitie suggested that Armenia benefits from opportunities
offered by the New Neighborhood policy by proposing various regional
cooperation initiatives. In the initial stage, such programs could cover
Armenia and Georgia and if successfully implemented, would establish a new
momentum of regional cooperation.
The parties also explored the current status and prospects of Nagorno
Karabagh conflict regulation and exchanged views on other issues of regional
significance.
The above issues were also discussed at a round table with EU Ambassador,
hosted by the Ministry on the same day.

KARABAKH SIDE ARTIFICIALLY ISOLATED FROM NEGOTIATIONS
Arkady Ghukasian’s Interview to Regnum Agency
Azg/arm
26 Jan 05
Arkady Ghukasian, NKR President, said in the interview to the Russian
Regnum agency that the consequent meetings between the Azeri and the
Armenian foreign ministers “are useful, certainly.” On the other hand,
he added that these meetings can’t replace the full negotiation
process with the full-right participation of NKR. “One shouldn’t
forget that the Nagorno Karabakh issue was risen by the people of
Karabakh and it concerns the status of NKR. The rest is the result of
the war Azerbaijan forced us to fight,” Ghukasian said.
In response to the question whether Yerevan and Stepanakert make
sufficient efforts to avert discussing of formulae unfavorable for NKR
at various international instances, Ghukasian said that the
unfavorable characteristics for the Armenian side in the documents of
the international instances are conditioned by the absence of Nagorno
Karabakh in the negotiation process. “The negations and discussions of
the Nagorno Karabakh issue are carried out on the level the relations
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. They are supposed to cause such
characteristics time after time. Here, we don’t mean the volume of
efforts, but the principles and the conceptual approaches in the
settlement mechanisms,”NKR president said.
As for the question whether it is time for Yerevan to put forward the
issue of NKR participation in the negotiations, Ghukasian said: “First
of all, the addressee is not right, secondly, the issue will have no
peaceful settlement if we continue issuing ultimatums. It will not be
settled without NKR’s participation in the negotiation process,
either. Make your own conclusions.”

SOME POLITICAL EXPERTS DID NOT UNDERSTAND AMBASSADOR EVANS’ SPEECH
Azg/arm
26 Jan 05
Though, John Evans, US ambassador to Armenia, repeated for five times
in the course of the interview given to Armenia TV that the Assistant
of the US State Secretary didn’t call the NKR authorities “criminal
elements” and the American lady has personally called Vartan Oskanian,
RA foreign minister, and assured that she didn’t mean Nagorno Karabakh
and its authorities by saying”criminal separatists,” the Armenian
press and the TV continued the “anti-Johns” hysteria on Saturday and
Sunday.
It turns out that the denials given by ambassadors Evans and Johns are
of no great importance for some Armenian political experts and
journalists. The point is that they are speaking of the words the
American lady didnâ=80=99t even say. Our local newspapers published
the analytical articles of the political experts instead of publishing
the interview give by Evans.
Aram Sargsian was the most serious among them. According to Haykakan
Zhamanak, Sargsian stated that if the Armenian authorities make no
conclusions of the statement made by Johns, there can be very
complicated consequences. He predicted that one day RA authorities
might flee from Armenia, one day theymay wake up and see that they are
not in Armenia any longer, they have escaped from fear.
Stepan Gevorgian, political expert, pointed out in Aravot, that the
statement made by the American lady should be observed “in the context
of the consequences occurred as a result of the wrong foreign policy
conducted by RA authorities.” Hrant Khachatrian, leader of Union of
National Self-Determination, that used to be fed by the sources
received from Karabakh, said: “The very regime of Armenia was
described as that of the separatists and the criminals,” as “everybody
knows that we can’t lie that NKR is out of Armeniaâ=80=99s control in
some aspect.”
The Second Glance program over Shant TV was the most exciting one. It
was broadcasted on Sunday evening, i.e. 2 days later the denial of
Evans and Johns. Some of the guests of the program pretended that
they don’t understand anything. For instance, Sergey Shaqariants,
political expert, expressed theopinion that Johns is carrying out the
policy of the US State Department, while Aghasi Yenoqian called the
NKR authorities criminal and corrupted, because the opposition won the
latest elections for the local administration bodies.
Suren Zolian also showed his unawareness, saying that, in fact, the US
State Department recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity by
spreading the January 18 statement. Afterwards, when a student asked
how could Mrs. Johnssay such a thing on days of sending forces to
Iraq, Shaqariants, political expert, responded: “Perhaps, that was the
way the US thanked us. Yenoqian observed the statement made by the
American lady (in fact, the things she didn’tsay) in the context of
the coming meeting between Bush and Putin.
While, some of the newspapers couldn’t help admiration and joy in the
articles they issued. Even the Azeri press was not that delighted for
the “criminal elements” word combination. One of the newspapers was no
excited by these words that they even remembered the prediction of
Vano Siradeghian, saying that Robert Kocharian should be passed to the
International Court in Hague.
The press of the AAM (All Armenian Movement) and of the former
authorities were also delighted. The position of the authorities was
queer, as the local administration bodies, doctors, intelligentsia
gathered against the American by their assistance. The Public TV
worked well on those days, highlighting the arrangements reminding of
the Communist times.
The Azeri press didn’t touch upon the American lady’s statements that
much. The game between Nevtchi-Pyunik and the victory of the Baku
team were in the center of the attention on those days. The official
Baku echoed the events on January 22, after the denial of ambassadors
Evans and Johns. Araz Azimov, Azeri deputy foreign minister, said in
the interview to ANS TV: “I think that Mrs. Johns’ statement was
objective and corresponded to the reality.” Asfor the statement of
Oskanian, saying that Johns personally called him and explained the
situation, Azimov said that it is a mere PR step and advised the
journalists not to pay attention to the statements made by RA foreign
minister and treat then less seriously.
By Tatoul Hakobian

Le Monde, France
25 janvier 2005
De la barbarie hitlérienne est née la notion de « crime contre l’humanité »
1945 – 2005
par Nathalie Guibert,
À QUELLES valeurs renvoie la notion d’humanité ? Parce que la
question est immense, les juristes peinent encore à définir les
crimes contre l’humanité.
Cette incrimination pénale a émergé, en 1945, de la barbarie
hitlérienne. Depuis, elle n’a cessé d’évoluer. Récemment, le
terrorisme, le clonage humain, sont venus à nouveau la bousculer. «
On essaie, avec cette notion, de définir des valeurs, que l’on a du
mal à écrire dans des mots de juristes », résume Michel Massé,
professeur de droit à l’université de Poitiers.
Avant la seconde guerre mondiale, les actes inhumains, commis
collectivement contre des populations civiles au nom d’un projet
politique, étaient sanctionnés sous l’incrimination de « crimes de
guerre ». Seuls quelques diplomates avaient utilisé l’expression de «
crime contre l’humanité » après le génocide des Arméniens de 1915.
Les crimes contre l’humanité sont inscrits le 8 août 1945 dans
l’accord de Londres instaurant le tribunal militaire international
siégeant à Nuremberg. Ils sont alors définis comme « l’assassinat,
l’extermination, la réduction en esclavage, la déportation, et tout
autre acte inhumain commis contre toute population civile, avant ou
pendant la guerre, ou bien les persécutions pour des motifs
politiques, raciaux ou religieux ».
Mais, en 1945, la priorité est de punir les crimes contre la paix et
les crimes de guerre ; les victimes civiles sont négligées. Au procès
de Nuremberg, « les crimes contre l’humanité, que l’on vient pourtant
de créer, sont absents », rappelle Denis Salas, secrétaire général de
l’Association pour l’histoire de la justice. Dans le jugement des
responsables nazis, ces crimes « ne sont retenus que comme une
catégorie interstitielle destinée à combler les manques des autres
infractions, explique M. Salas. Les acteurs du procès de Nuremberg
ont du mal à penser un mal radical qui excède les bornes du droit ».
En 1948, l’ONU ajoute le génocide au crime contre l’humanité. En
1973, c’est le cas de l’apartheid. Des criminels sont jugés sous la
nouvelle qualification, par des tribunaux nationaux, comme ce fut le
cas pour Adolf Eichmann en Israël, ou des juridictions
internationales ad hoc, tel le tribunal pénal pour l’ex-Yougoslavie.
En France, il faut attendre le code pénal de 1994 pour voir ces
crimes sortir du contexte de la seconde guerre mondiale et s’inscrire
dans le droit national. Mais le texte de 1994 n’a jamais servi. Paul
Touvier, Klaus Barbie et Maurice Papon ont été condamnés en référence
au texte de Nuremberg et au nom de l’imprescriptibilité de ces
crimes, reconnue par la France en 1964.
Des plaintes ont certes été déposées contre des criminels étrangers
recherchés en France, tel Augusto Pinochet. Mais les juges ont retenu
la qualification de « torture », plus efficace pour les poursuivre
bien que ce crime ne soit pas imprescriptible. En la matière, la
Convention de l’ONU autorise, en effet, la compétence universelle. En
outre, les deux lois de 2001 relatives à la reconnaissance du
génocide arménien et à l’esclavage ne peuvent être utilisées pour
poursuivre des responsables, en raison du principe de
non-rétroactivité.
Mais « le plus important, c’est que le droit français a été
verrouillé par la Cour de cassation pour que le crime contre
l’humanité ne puisse pas s’appliquer à la guerre d’Algérie, souligne
M. Massé. La France reconnaît ce crime pour des faits anciens, et
pour les actes nouveaux, à partir de 1994. Entre les deux, il y a un
trou, dans la mémoire et dans le droit ».
Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 à New York ont, de nouveau,
bousculé l’incrimination née il y a cinquante ans. Pour Robert
Badinter, il convient d’assimiler ces actes aux crimes contre
l’humanité. « Des actes semant la terreur, visant aveuglément des
populations civiles, et commis au nom d’un projet et de motivations
idéologiques entrent tout à fait dans le cadre des crimes contre
l’humanité », estime l’ancien ministre de la justice.
Et ce d’autant que les statuts de la Cour pénale internationale,
installée en 2002, définissent les crimes contre l’humanité comme les
actes de meurtre, d’extermination, de persécution ou de déportation «
commis dans le cadre d’une attaque généralisée ou systématique lancée
contre toute population civile ».
Mais la question divise les juristes. Jusqu’à présent, ces deux
droits ont évolué parallèlement, explique M. Massé, car « la nature
du terrorisme est différente : il s’en prend à n’importe qui, et non
à un groupe précis ; ses auteurs n’ont pas, à la différence des
autres criminels, le contrôle d’un territoire ; enfin, ils subissent
une réprobation morale relative : des années après les faits,
certains terroristes ont acquis une légitimité, un pouvoir ».
Les biotechnologies provoquent également des interrogations. En
France, la loi du 6 août 2004 a ainsi modifié le code pénal, plaçant
en tête du chapitre consacré aux crimes contre les personnes, les «
crimes contre l’humanité et contre l’espèce humaine ». Ces derniers
venus recouvrent l’eugénisme et le clonage humain, punis de trente
ans de réclusion. « Le crime contre l’humanité peut se définir comme
le fait d’avoir éliminé massivement des personnes qu’on estime
différentes. Le clonage pourrait être l’inverse, le fait de créer des
personnes en maîtrisant leurs caractéristiques. D’où ce rapprochement
des deux notions, même si le droit, ttonnant, ne les assimile pas
encore », indique M. Massé.
L’installation de la CPI rend désormais possible le jugement de tous
les « crimes les plus graves touchant l’ensemble de la communauté
internationale ». « C’est un progrès, souligne M. Badinter, mais
toutes les leçons d’Auschwitz n’ont pas été tirées par la justice. De
longs silences pèsent sur les génocides ultérieurs, comme celui du
Cambodge. »