Tweet
CHINGIZ ASGAROV: "ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT RESULTS OF OUR WORK CAN BE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT'S RECOGNITION OF THE FACT OF THE OCCUPATION OF ONE FIFTH PART OF AZERBAIJANI LANDS BY ARMENIA"
APA
Jan 12 2012
Azerbaijan
Baku - APA. Interview with Chingiz Asgarov, Azerbaijan's authorized
representative at the European Court of Human Rights
- On January 9, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights declared
admissible the application of the Azerbaijani internally displaced
persons v. Armenia, and also the application of the Armenian refugee
v. Azerbaijan. Could you give detailed information about these
applications?
-In April, 2005, Elkhan Chiragov and five other internally displaced
persons from Azerbaijan's Lachin region filed an application against
Armenia to the European Court. The Azerbaijani government used the
right to attend the hearing as the third party. This was one of the
thousand applications filed by Azerbaijani citizens against Armenia.
Approximately, a year and a half later a citizen of Armenia filed
an application against Azerbaijan. The applicant claimed that he had
lived in Gulustan village of Azerbaijan's Goranboy region by 1992 and
was obliged to leave for Yerevan as a result of the military conflict.
The date and text of the application shows that this is the reaction
of the Armenian side to Azerbaijan's activity at the European Court.
Though this claim "was a little late", the European Court started
considering the applications simultaneously. On September 15, 2010,
open hearings were held in Strasbourg.
Members of the British human rights organization represent the IDPs
from Lachin on their initiative.
Under the instructions of the Head of State, the Azerbaijani government
did much to gather evidence, outstanding international experts on
human rights were also involved in the process. As the lawyers of the
applicants did not have opportunities to gather necessary materials,
all the main documents were gathered and submitted to the European
Court by the Azerbaijani government.
- What issues do the European Court's decisions touch?
- The decisions made by the European Court on January 9, 2012 have an
interim character. The court considers only the admissibility of the
suits in this phase. The essence of the issue and the backgrounds,
which are significant for identification of the violation of Human
Rights Convention, will be considered in the next phase.
The comments on the facts, the theory, are very important in both
decisions along with the legal conclusions. The decisions say that
as a result of military actions, Armenians occupied not only the
territory of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region, but also seven
nearby regions, territories of which are two times larger than Nagorno
Karabakh. About 800 000 Azerbaijanis and other non-Armenian nations
were forced to leave their permanent residence and became internally
displaced persons.
The court noted that no one Azerbaijani lives in the occupied
territories today.
I repeat again that the legal issues, including the issue of violation
of the rights of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons by the
Republic of Armenia, will be considered in the next phase.
Azerbaijan, in the words of the European Court, submitted direct and
indirect evidences, which prove that the territory named as "Nagorno
Karabakh Republic" is a "new administration subordinated to Yerevan".
I consider that these evidences are significant for bringing Armenia
to responsibility for violation of the rights of Azerbaijani internally
displaced persons.
The decision about the admissibility of the Sargsyan's claims against
Azerbaijan is also interesting.
The issues raised by Chiragov and others against Armenia were touched
upon in the complaint. It also contains claims about the destruction
of an Armenian cemetery in the territory of Azerbaijan. But this part
of the complaint has had no perspective since very beginning and it
is not surprising that the European Court rejected this claim and
noted that the complainant had no right to introduce himself as a
"victim" of violation of the Convention.
In substance, while considering the claim of Armenian side, the
court must first of all settle the jurisdiction issue, in other
words, must pass decision on Azerbaijan's responsibility because
of infringement of principles of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The Azerbaijani government announced in the European Court
that Gulustan village is situated in the contact line of Azerbaijani
and Armenian troops, the Armenian side repeatedly violates ceasefire
here and therefore Azerbaijan has no opportunity to implement
the application of Convention's principles in this territory, and
consequently Azerbaijan is not responsible for it.
Evidently the Armenian side understood the weight of this argument
and that's why we can observe that there has been no information on
the violation of ceasefire regime in the abovementioned part of the
contact line.
In any case we have a big task on gathering the legal evidences
confirming Armenia's military aggression and occupation of Azerbaijani
lands.
We must prove our rightness in the court and contribute to the work
on protection of the rights of the IDPs to return to their homes.
Besides, one of the significant results of this work can be the
international court's recognition of the fact of the occupation of
one fifth part of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia.
APA
Jan 12 2012
Azerbaijan
Baku - APA. Interview with Chingiz Asgarov, Azerbaijan's authorized
representative at the European Court of Human Rights
- On January 9, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights declared
admissible the application of the Azerbaijani internally displaced
persons v. Armenia, and also the application of the Armenian refugee
v. Azerbaijan. Could you give detailed information about these
applications?
-In April, 2005, Elkhan Chiragov and five other internally displaced
persons from Azerbaijan's Lachin region filed an application against
Armenia to the European Court. The Azerbaijani government used the
right to attend the hearing as the third party. This was one of the
thousand applications filed by Azerbaijani citizens against Armenia.
Approximately, a year and a half later a citizen of Armenia filed
an application against Azerbaijan. The applicant claimed that he had
lived in Gulustan village of Azerbaijan's Goranboy region by 1992 and
was obliged to leave for Yerevan as a result of the military conflict.
The date and text of the application shows that this is the reaction
of the Armenian side to Azerbaijan's activity at the European Court.
Though this claim "was a little late", the European Court started
considering the applications simultaneously. On September 15, 2010,
open hearings were held in Strasbourg.
Members of the British human rights organization represent the IDPs
from Lachin on their initiative.
Under the instructions of the Head of State, the Azerbaijani government
did much to gather evidence, outstanding international experts on
human rights were also involved in the process. As the lawyers of the
applicants did not have opportunities to gather necessary materials,
all the main documents were gathered and submitted to the European
Court by the Azerbaijani government.
- What issues do the European Court's decisions touch?
- The decisions made by the European Court on January 9, 2012 have an
interim character. The court considers only the admissibility of the
suits in this phase. The essence of the issue and the backgrounds,
which are significant for identification of the violation of Human
Rights Convention, will be considered in the next phase.
The comments on the facts, the theory, are very important in both
decisions along with the legal conclusions. The decisions say that
as a result of military actions, Armenians occupied not only the
territory of the Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Region, but also seven
nearby regions, territories of which are two times larger than Nagorno
Karabakh. About 800 000 Azerbaijanis and other non-Armenian nations
were forced to leave their permanent residence and became internally
displaced persons.
The court noted that no one Azerbaijani lives in the occupied
territories today.
I repeat again that the legal issues, including the issue of violation
of the rights of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons by the
Republic of Armenia, will be considered in the next phase.
Azerbaijan, in the words of the European Court, submitted direct and
indirect evidences, which prove that the territory named as "Nagorno
Karabakh Republic" is a "new administration subordinated to Yerevan".
I consider that these evidences are significant for bringing Armenia
to responsibility for violation of the rights of Azerbaijani internally
displaced persons.
The decision about the admissibility of the Sargsyan's claims against
Azerbaijan is also interesting.
The issues raised by Chiragov and others against Armenia were touched
upon in the complaint. It also contains claims about the destruction
of an Armenian cemetery in the territory of Azerbaijan. But this part
of the complaint has had no perspective since very beginning and it
is not surprising that the European Court rejected this claim and
noted that the complainant had no right to introduce himself as a
"victim" of violation of the Convention.
In substance, while considering the claim of Armenian side, the
court must first of all settle the jurisdiction issue, in other
words, must pass decision on Azerbaijan's responsibility because
of infringement of principles of the European Convention on Human
Rights. The Azerbaijani government announced in the European Court
that Gulustan village is situated in the contact line of Azerbaijani
and Armenian troops, the Armenian side repeatedly violates ceasefire
here and therefore Azerbaijan has no opportunity to implement
the application of Convention's principles in this territory, and
consequently Azerbaijan is not responsible for it.
Evidently the Armenian side understood the weight of this argument
and that's why we can observe that there has been no information on
the violation of ceasefire regime in the abovementioned part of the
contact line.
In any case we have a big task on gathering the legal evidences
confirming Armenia's military aggression and occupation of Azerbaijani
lands.
We must prove our rightness in the court and contribute to the work
on protection of the rights of the IDPs to return to their homes.
Besides, one of the significant results of this work can be the
international court's recognition of the fact of the occupation of
one fifth part of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia.