European Armenian Federation welcomes ECHR judgment in Perincek v. Switzerland case

October 15, 2015 By administrator

Bedo Demirdjian, who is in charge of Communications & PR at the European Armenian

The European Armenian Federation welcomes the judgment delivered today by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland (no. 27510/08)), in which Armenia was also involved as a third party.

Bedo Demirdjian, who is in charge of Communications & PR at the European Armenian Federation, told the correspondent of Panorama.am that especially commendable is the point, under which the upper chamber changes the lower chamber’s decision that the Armenian Genocide is not a subject for discussion there.

“It is especially important that the European Court itself has stated that we the Armenians have the right to protection of dignity and respect. Yes, we are satisfied with the judgment delivered by Europe’s highest court today,” Bedo Demirdjian said.

Source: Panorama.am

Armenian justice official hails ECHR judgment in Perincek case

October 15, 2015 By administrator

A deputy prosecutor general of Armenia praises the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in the case Perincek vs Switzerland, considering the outcome positive for the Armenian side.
“This ruling is a very good result for Armenia and the Armenians,” Emil Babayan told Tert.am, commenting on the Grand Chamber’s judgment delivered earlier today.
He particularly hailed the statement saying that the ECHR has no authority to make a legally binding pronouncement on a point falling within the logic of criminal law.
“First, it neutralizes the comments of those lower chamber judges who were not inclined to think that the 1915 killings of the Armenians could have amounted to a crime of genocide. The Court ruled that they do not have any authority to issue any conclusion on that point – that the lower chamber’s decision was wrong and could not have any weight or influence,” Babayan noted.
The next important point, he said, was the Chamber’s statement saying that the Armenians have a right to respect the dignity of the ancestors who suffered the Genocide. “That’s a decision of a great importance. It means that the states in Europe can punish the denial of the Armenian Genocide, if [such an act] is calculated to incite violence or disharmony. The idea behind suing Switzerland for the Perincek case was to state that he is just a stool pigeon whose words wouldn’t be taken for granted or inflict damage on anyone. [That’s why the Court ruled] that it was not necessary, in a democratic society, to subject Perincek to a criminal penalty,” he added.
Babayan cited the Chamber’s reassertion of the right to freedom of speech as the next key point in the judgment. “That means that the laws ‘insulting Turkishnes’ [Article 301 of Turkey’s Criminal Code] cannot be applied here as was the case with Hrant Dink and other Turkish and Armenian citizens who are conducting research to study Turkey’s complicity in the Genocide. So Turkey must now stop the violations against freedom of speech,” he added.

Armenia official: That was what we wanted from ECHR in Perincek case

October 15, 2015 By administrator

FRANCE SWITZERLAND ECHR PERINCEK

Even though the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Grand Chamber rejected Switzerland’s petition in the case of Perincek v Switzerland, the judgment can be considered a triumph of the Armenian party in the sense that the lower chamber ruling’s unacceptable evaluations, which questioned the fact of the Armenian Genocide, are removed from the text of this judgment.

Deputy Minister of Justice of Armenia Arman Tatoyan, who is also the Armenian government’s deputy authorized representative at the ECHR, told the aforesaid to Armenian News-NEWS.am, as he commented on Thursday’s ECHR Grand Chamber judgment.

“The Republic of Armenia, as a third party, sought that the ECHR would not make an assessment on the genocide,” said Tatoyan. “In fact, the ECHR Grand Chamber recorded in its judgment that it has no authority and cannot give an assessment on what occurred in 1915, which the genocide term can be characterized in any way within the meaning under international law, and cannot make any legally binding pronouncements.”

In his words, Armenia, as a third party, pursued this very objective from the very beginning.

“Turkey needed a clear statement that there was no genocide, [that] there had been some events,” added the Armenian official. “Whereas the European Court not only noted that it will not give a response to such a matter, but it has no authority and it is not the court to respond to this matter. That was exactly what Armenia claimed.”

The ECHR Grand Chamber judgment also specifically states: “As regards the scope of the case, the Court underlined that it was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards could be characterised as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law; unlike the international criminal courts, it had no authority to make legally binding pronouncements on this point.”

In 2008, a Swiss court had convicted Turkish ultranationalist politician Dogu Perincek for denying the Armenian Genocide. In December 2013, the ECHR had ruled in favor of Perincek’s lawsuit that was filed against Switzerland. Subsequently, the Government of Switzerland petitioned that the Dogu Perincek case be referred for a review by the ECHR Grand Chamber.

Separately, Armenia had petitioned to the ECHR, and it now acts as a third party in this case, whose ECHR Grand Chamber hearing was held on January 28. Armenia was represented at this hearing by renowned attorneys Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney.

Dogu Perincek is chairman of the left-wing Patriotic—formerly Workers’—Party of Turkey. In addition, he heads the Turkish ultranationalist Talaat Pasha organization, which actively fights against the Armenian Genocide’s recognition in Europe.

European Court Issues Contentious Ruling On Perincek Case

October 15, 2015 By administrator

STRASBOURG, France—The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday issued a contentious ruling in the case of Perincek vs. Switzerland, which concerned the criminal conviction by Switzerland of Turkish politician Dogu Perincek for publically challenging the existence of the Armenian Genocide.

While the ruling upholds Perincek’s right to freedom of speech in this narrow case, the court also upholds the “right to dignity” of Armenian people and maintains legality of laws criminalizing genocide denial.

Armenia was represented at Thursday’s hearing by human rights attorney Geoffrey Robertson and Armenia’s Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan, with leaders of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy present at the court.

The ruling does correct several errors in the original judgment, by specifically stressing that “it was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards could be characterized as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law; unlike the international criminal courts, it had no authority to make legally binding pronouncements on this point.”

This provision strikes down the Chamber’s “doubt[…] that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths.”

The Grand Chamber decision concerning the crucial question of the distinction between Holocaust denial and denial of the genocide of the Armenian people in 1915, is contentious. So is its assertion that in his statements, Perincek “had not expressed contempt or hatred for the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years.”

“The Court still leaves open other situations where one could punish an individual for denying the Armenian Genocide in certain circumstances. The Court noted that they were it was wrong to convict Perincek partly because there were no heightened tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland. So one could conclude from the opinion that if there are situations where there are heightened tensions between Armenians and Turks because of the denial, than denial of the Armenian Genocide maybe punishable,” said Kasbar Karapetian, President of the EAFJD.

“This is a mixed decision, because fundamental principles were not followed. This confused court has created a very problematic decision, which will encourage hate speech not only against Armenians but all minorities,” said Kate Nahapetian, the Governmental Affairs Director of the Armenian National Committee of America.

Seven Jurists issue dissent to ECHR decision

In a document issued after the ruling, seven of the 17 judges dissented from the ruling, among them the court’s president Judge Dean Spielmann. This underscored the contentious nature of the ECHR ruling.

“That the massacres and deportations suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is self-evident. The Armenian genocide is a clearly established historical fact,” said the jurists in their dissent.

“To deny it is to deny the obvious. But that is not the question here. The case is not about the historical truth, or the legal characterization of the events of 1915. The real issue at stake here is whether it is possible for a State, without overstepping its margin of appreciation, to make it a criminal offence to insult the memory of a people that has suffered genocide,” added the dissent.

“In our view, this is indeed possible… The statements in question contain an intent (animus) to insult a whole people. They are a gross misrepresentation, being directed at Armenians as a group, attempting to justify the actions of the Ottoman authorities by portraying them almost as acts of self-defence, and containing racist overtones denigrating the memory of the victims, as the Federal Court rightly found,” the dissenting judges said.

“Within six months at most, Switzerland will report on how it intends to proceed to the Committee of Ministers of the European Council, which is responsible for monitoring the execution by Member States of final judgments. The report must set out the action that Switzerland has taken to eliminate the consequences of the violation determined in this individual case, as well as to prevent such violations in the future. If Switzerland is not yet able to report fully on the execution of the judgment, it must at least present a binding schedule indicating when the intended implementation measures will be undertaken,” said a statement by the Swiss Justice Ministry.

Armenia’s Prosecutor General’s Office Reacts

Armenia’s Prosecutor General’s office issued a statement, in which it expressed satisfaction with the ruling pointing out:

1. It overrules the comments by several judges in the lower court who thought that the mass murder of the Armenians in 1915 might not amount to genocide. The Court held that they had no jurisdiction to consider findings on this issue. So the lower court judgment was wrong and can no longer have any weight or influence.

2. The Court declared that Armenians have “the right to respect for their and their ancestors’ dignity including their right to respect for their identity constructed around the understanding that their community has suffered genocide” (para 227). This is a ruling of great importance. It means that states in Europe can punish Armenian genocide denial if it is calculated to incite violence or racial disharmony. The problem with the Swiss prosecution of Perincek was that he is a worthless provocateur whose speech would not have been taken seriously or done any harm, so there was no need in a democratic society to use criminal law against him.

3. The reaffirmation of free speech principles by the court means that the laws against “insulting Turkishness” in the Turkish criminal code (Article 301) cannot be used as they were against Hrant Dink and other Turkish and Armenian citizens who probe Turkish guilt for the Genocide. Turkish infringements of free speech must now end.

ECHR to deliver judgment in Perincek case on October 15

October 12, 2015 By administrator

The European Court of Human Rights will be delivering its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland on Thursday 15 October 2015.

The case concerns the criminal conviction of a Turkish politician for publicly expressing the view, in Switzerland, that the mass deportations and massacres suffered by the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 and the following years had not amounted to genocide.

In 2008, a Swiss court had convicted Dogu Perincek for denying the Armenian Genocide. In December 2013, the ECHR had ruled in favor of Perincek’s lawsuit that was filed against Switzerland. Subsequently, the Government of Switzerland petitioned that the Dogu Perincek case be referred for a review by the ECHR Grand Chamber.

Separately, Armenia had petitioned to the ECHR, and it now acts as a third party in this case, whose European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber hearing was held on January 28.

Armenia was represented by famous lawyers Geoffrey Robertson, Amal Clooney.

ECHR rules Baku must pay € 14,000 over violation of journalist’s rights

June 19, 2015 By administrator

On June 18, the European Court of Human Rights ruled a judgment in the case “Mehdiyev against Azerbaijan.”

As Tert.am reports citing contact.az, the Court revealed a violation of Hakimeldostu Mehdiyev’s rights, maltreatment, imprisonment by the Ministry of National Security of Nakhchivan for his journalistic activities.

The reason for the persecution became Mehdiyev’s publication about violation of citizens’ rights in 2007, after which he was summoned to the local office of the National Security Ministry, where they started beating him with truncheons, demanding to stop his journalistic activity. After that, he was taken to court and arrested for 15 days for resisting police. While in custody, he was refused food and water, and was released without explanation in 4 days.

The authorities have not acknowledged the arrest of Mehdiyev.

The European Court ruled that the government of Azerbaijan is obliged to pay Mehdiyev 10,000 euros as compensation and 4,000 euros for legal and other expenses.

Tert.am. Azerbaijan loses another case in at ECHR

ECHR rejects Turkish appeal to ruling on compulsory religion classes

February 18, 2015 By administrator

Güven Özalp BRUSSELS

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected Turkey’s appeal to a ruling that said high school students must be allowed to opt out of religious education classes, which are currently compulsory.

ECHR ruled on Sept. 16, 2014, that the Turkish education system was “still inadequately equipped to ensure respect for parents’ convictions” and violated the “right to education,” in a case stemming from Alevi complaints about mandatory religious classes.

In December 2014, Turkey appealed to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber, the court’s office of appeal, on the last day available to do so, requesting that the case be reviewed. The Grand Chamber, however, rejected Turkey’s appeal on Feb. 17, 2015, with no elaboration, rendering the decision as ultimate. report hurriyet

In 2011, applicants Mansur Yalçın, Yüksel Polat and Hasan Kılıç, who are adherents of the Alevi faith and whose children were at secondary school at the time in question, complained that the content of the compulsory classes in religion and ethics in schools was based exclusively on the Sunni understanding of Islam, claiming that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights Protocol No. 1 (right to education) had been violated.

In its ruling, the court observed in particular that in the field of religious instruction, Turkey’s education system was still inadequately equipped to ensure respect for parents’ convictions.

“Turkey has to remedy the situation without delay, in particular by introducing a system whereby pupils could be exempted from religion and ethics classes without their parents having to disclose their own religious or philosophical convictions,” said the court.

According to the directive sent by the Education Ministry’s Religious Education Directorate to provincial officials on Feb. 3, the “religion” field of a child’s identity card will be checked to decide whether they are allowed to opt out of religious education classes. If the field is left empty, or if any religion other than Christianity and Judaism is written, then the student will be obliged to take the class.

Previously, Turkish authorities had considered it adequate for a student to opt out of the controversial classes if their father or mother is either Christian or Jewish. Other faiths, like Alevism, or a lack of faith, have never been recognized by Turkish authorities as a reason for exemption from the mandatory classes.

Video: Judge Robertson speech call Talat, Ottoman Hitler at European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Armenian Genocide Case

January 28, 2015 By administrator

#JusticevsDenial Amal Clooney has accused Turkey of having double standards over freedom of expression for defending a man accused of denying the Armenian genocide.

At the request of Switzerland, Strasbourg judges are reviewing the case between Bern Dogu Perinçek. The Turkish nationalist had called the Armenian Genocide “international lie”. It was in Strasbourg that the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) must reconsider Wednesday at the request of the case between Bern Switzerland Dogu Perinçek

Independent: Amal Clooney accuses Turkey of double standards on freedom of expression in Armenian genocide hearing

January 28, 2015 By administrator

Human rights lawyer tells ECHR: ‘

This court knows very well how disgraceful Turkey’s record

on freedom of expression is’ report independent

Amal Clooney has accused Turkey of having double standards over freedom of expression for defending a man accused of denying the Armenian genocide.

On Wednesday, the human rights lawyer and Geoffrey Robertson QC stood before Europe’s top human rights court to represent Armenia in their case against Doğu Perinçek, the leader of the Turkish Workers’ Party.

Perinçek was convicted of denying the 2015 Armenian genocide in 2007 after comments he made in 2005 where he said the legal definition of Armenian genocide was an “international lie”.

His conviction was later overturned following an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), who ruled his right to free speech had been violated. Turkey was a co-defendant in that case.

Arguing against the appeal in Strasbourg on Tuesday, Ms Clooney said the judge’s decision was “simply wrong”.

Switzerland: Armenian genocide: “Parliament must not play historians”

January 27, 2015 By administrator

Wednesday, Switzerland will face before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Dogu Perinçek, who had publicly denied the existence of the Armenian genocide. The lawyer and National Councillor Yves Nidegger (UDC / GE) has heard the voice of the 130,000 Turks living in Switzerland defending the position of the Federation of Turkish Associations in Western Switzerland

Wednesday, Switzerland will face Dogu Perinçek before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party had publicly denied the existence of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. Convicted of racial discrimination by the police court in Lausanne (judgment upheld by the Federal Court), the Everyone has enjoyed the support of the ECHR, the latter believing that Switzerland had violated his freedom of expression. The lawyer and National Councillor Yves Nidegger (UDC / GE) has heard the voice of the 130,000 Turks living in Switzerland defending the position of the Federation of Turkish Associations in western Switzerland.

Time: Why the term genocide is it not applicable to events of 1915?

Yves Nidegger: It is up to historians to say whether this term is applicable or not, and a commission of Turkish and Armenian historians was specifically formed for this in the context of the Zurich protocols. As this historic debate is ongoing, there is no sanction opinions, even if they are false or hateful, from either party.

The National Council has acknowledged the existence of such a genocide in 2003 …

It is always a mistake for a parliament to play the historians, this is not its role. In a democracy, we can not have the same people who say the official story as a resolution and enact a criminal provision to punish those who have the bad taste to disagree with it. If it were possible in the Soviet Union, this can not be in Switzerland.

Why Dogu Perinçek’s statements do not they fall within the scope of Article 261 bis of the Penal Code, which con damns those who “minimize crimes against humanity”?

The article speaks of one who “grossly minimizes” a crime against humanity. But the killings are not denied by Mr Perinçek. He does not say that the Armenians have not suffered or are suffering dummy. It simply says that to qualify these genocidal events to accuse Turkey is an international lie. You can be completely disagree with what he says. Freedom of speech has limits, of course, but the limits that the state may make the exercise of freedom of expression is also limited. The issue is there.

How to explain the vigor with which the Turkish authorities are fighting to deny the term genocide?

The explanation is pretty much the same as for a Swiss who does not want to be condemned by the ECHR for violating freedom of expression. The Turks do not want to be called a Nazi. Who would want, anyway?

It’s still funny that the UDC that you are defending an opinion which is against Switzerland, which is more a court that your party tries to kill, right?

(Laughs) For the first time, you will see the UDC invoke the infallible law of the Court and the superiority of international law. If the Grand Chamber disclaims Switzerland, or be amended article 261 bis, or you leave the ECHR.

If one recognizes Dogu Perinçek the right to speak, would it would not allow the construction of an Armenian memorial in the Ariana Park, close to the UN?

Not in the Ariana park under UN windows. And one that is here is the city of Geneva, it is the state, even if all this was done at the insistence of the Armenians. When the state is the official history by saying, “I think it is genocide,” this is not quite the same thing as a private memorial erected on a private plot, for example the Armenian church. I am in the opinion of Didier Burkhalter: mark the UN territory with an extremely serious charge of a people against another is not in the spirit of Geneva or that of international Geneva.

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/d27b4474-a590-11e4-9acf-c65b500212f4/G%C3%A9nocide_arm%C3%A9nien_Le_parlement_ne_doit_pas_jouer_les_historiens