YEREVAN, JULY 8, ARMENPRESS. Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan gave an interview to Armenpress News agency. Below you can find Kocharyan’s full answers.

Question: Mister Kocharyan, after some pause the case of Chiragov v. Armenia has again become a subject of manipulation in Azerbaijan. How would you comment it?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: You know, for quite a long time I stopped to look for any logic in the behaviour of the Azerbaijani leadership, and my advice to you would be the same. It looks like a nightmare when the leadership of a country that every day consistently violates human rights makes continuous references to the Judgment of the ECHR. 

Frequently the actions of the government in the authoritarian states do not follow any logic rather they are directed by the personal interest and conformism. I can only assume, that given the absence of the desired reaction on the mentioned case of the ECHR and facing substantiated argumentation by the Armenian side, those who are responsible for the propaganda in Azerbaijan got instructions to save the situation - to take measures to defend their arbitrary interpretations.

You have rightly noticed that Azerbaijan took some pause before coming again with its comments. Probably they tried to prepare it in the best possible way, however, as the proverb says “your mouth will not sweet if you keep saying sweet”. The maximum that Azerbaijani side managed to do is to repeat their first statement.

This time again Baku did not shy away to distort the reality and attribute to the Judgment of the ECHR formulations which have not been used in it. The Azerbaijani side claims that, “the Court confirmed that Armenia’s territorial claims and its attempts aimed at annexation of a part of the territory of Azerbaijan were the root cause of this armed conflict.” I believe it is not necessary to repeat each time that there are no such assertions in the Judgement. Moreover, talking about the history of the conflict, the Court refers to the demography of NK, the peaceful aspirations of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, their rejection by Azerbaijan and the abolishment of the autonomy of the NKAO, the referendum held in NK and declaration of independence and many other factors which could lead Azerbaijani propaganda machine to a tight squeeze and, thus, were ignored by it. Moreover, the violence and expulsion of the Armenian population by Azerbaijan is described in the Judgment of the ECHR on the Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan case. 

Attributing to the Court such provisions, that have never been used in the Judgment, openly trying to mislead its citizens, Baku demonstrates its ignorance not only towards the Judgment, but also to the ECHR, as well as to the rights of its own citizen Chiragov, demonstrating once more that Azerbaijan looks at the issue from the angle of manipulation and propaganda. Otherwise it is impossible to explain the Azerbaijani claim that allegedly the Court “ordered to protect” “the fundamental rights of internally displaced people”. There is no such a reference in the case as well.

In reality, as it has been mentioned in the case, the Judgement refers to the protection of the individual rights stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights. For the reference of the Azerbaijani “professionals” I am obliged to point out to the 147th paragraph of the ECHR Judgment on Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, where it is clearly noted that “The Court must bear in mind the special character of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (ordre public) for the protection of individual human beings”. As for the issue of displaced persons in general, the Court has also elaborated on that issue highlighting in the 216th paragraph of the Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan Judgment that the “comprehensive solutions to such questions ... can only be achieved through a peace agreement”. Even such lucid references do not prevent Azerbaijan from the attempts to distort the facts.

Let me bring another vivid example in this regard. The 198th paragraph of Chiragov v. Armenia Judgment notes that “Nor does the Court find that the ongoing negotiations within the OSCE Minsk Group on the issues relating to displaced persons provide a legal justification for the interference with the applicants’ rights.” While referring to this provision the Azerbaijani side simply replaced the word “applicant” to the “Azerbaijani internally displaced persons” to get a formulation favorable to it. And there are a lot of such examples, I shall not refer to all of them. I’ll only add that, such an irresponsible, I would say even childish attitude towards the Judgment of the ECHR, one of the most reputable institutions of human rights protection, is perplexing.

It is preposterous that Azerbaijan, still dares to speak about the ECHR decisions and their weight, when it itself violates a number of ECHR Judgments and the European Convention on Human Rights, demonstratively, and with different excuses delays, and, basically, refrains from implementing the Judgements which are under the supervision of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and which demand democratic reforms in Azerbaijan. Besides the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also has referred to this situation in its June 23, 2015 Resolution on the Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Azerbaijan. The 11.2nd paragraph of the Resolution calls on Azerbaijan to “fully implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in conformity with the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers”.

In the light of the continuous worsening of human rights situation in Azerbaijan and given the absence of necessary political will for reforms, the realization of the Judgments of the ECHR in Azerbaijan becomes almost impossible. But this does not prevent Baku to manipulate and misinterpret the case of ECHR which it tries to exploit for propaganda purposes.

The Azerbaijani side continues to insist that the Judgement on Chiragov’s case, using their own words, is “unprecedented”. It should be mentioned that this is another misrepresentation. It is not the first time that the Court makes Judgments on the protection of the rights of the displaced persons. As it is mentioned in the 129th paragraph of the same Judgment, the Court examined for the first time the rights of displaced persons in 1996 and later on has had a number of similar cases where it in accordance to the European Convention protected the rights of displaced persons. On the same day of the Chiragov's Judgment, the Court adopted another Judgment protecting the rights of Mr.Sargsyan who was forcefully displaced by Azerbaijan from the Gulistan village of the Shahumyan region. In both cases the Judgments of the Court are almost symmetrical. In both Cases the Court has registered the violation of the same rights of the Convention. I think by that the ECHR demonstrates that the issues related to the persons, individuals displaced as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, should be solved on the basis of the principles of reciprocity and equality.

With the aim to justify its attitude Baku does not shy away to arbitrarily interpret the international documents, in this particular case the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1974 on the definition of aggression. If the scribblers of Azerbaijani propaganda machine could only read this document, they would understand that in reality it gives a legal definition of the Azerbaijani aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh. Firstly, the resolution reaffirms the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination. Moreover, according to the resolution, both internationally recognized and unrecognized states may be subjected to an aggression. This is exactly what happened in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, when it became the target of the Azerbaijani aggression only for declaring about its independence based on the people’s right to self-determination. Therefore, the key to the conflict settlement is in the full recognition and implementation of the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.

In this context I would like to touch upon another Azerbaijani fabrication. According to them, “The Court essentially concurred with the position of Azerbaijan that the withdrawal of Armenian troops is a sine qua non condition … for conflict resolution.” It goes without saying that, as in the previous cases, here again there is no such kind of reference in the Judgment. It is interesting to note that Baku tries to use the argument based on its own misinterpretation of the Judgment to hinder the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process. Furthermore, Azerbaijan argues that the judgment of the Court should also guide the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs. We’ll leave it to the Azerbaijani strategists to enlighten us how Baku’s misinterpretation can guide the activities of the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. Here, it is important to underline that Azerbaijan blatantly attempts to interfere in the activities of the Co-Chairs, internationally mandated mediators, striving to dictate them to follow their instructions.

On the other hand, Azerbaijan reaffirms that it rejects the proposals by the OSCE MG Co-Chairs, does not consider the principles of international law and elements outlined in those proposals as an integrated whole, once again distorts the essence of the negotiation process.

In fact, Baku overtly rejects the statements of the Co-Chairs. It is noteworthy that the Co-chairs made a number of statements and some of them on the level of the presidents of the Co-chair countries, which outlined the basic principles and the elements of the conflict resolution. Baku has never supported them but now openly declares about rejecting them.

If Baku has an irresistible willingness, to reach the conflict resolution bypassing the proposals of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs, then the only way to do so is to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and start negotiations with it.