86 replies to this topic

[gamavor]

The "Great" Chamber of ECHR just delivered total fiasco. On one hand the court rules that Armenian genocide is a fact, by removing some of the findings from the lower court, and on the other hand it says that it is OK to deny it. Total fiasco.

[Yervant1]

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: I HOPE COURT WILL OVERRULE IRRESPONSIBLE STATEMENT ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

20:02, 14.10.2015

YEREVAN. - Attorney and renowned human rights advocate Geoffrey
Robertson, QC, hopes that the ECHR Grand Chamber will overrule the
irresponsible statement by three lower court judges who said there
might be a doubt about the Armenian Genocide.

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

"I intervened in this case with Amal Clooney on behalf of the
Government of Armenia in order to refute this foolish comment about
genocide," Mr. Robertson said in an e-mail response to the inquiry
by Armenian News-NEWS.am.

"It does not much matter what the court decides about Perincek -
he is a worthless provocateur - so long as it rules that free speech
cannot be criminalised unless it carries an incitement to violence
or to racial hatred. Such a ruling would strike at the oppressive
section 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code under which a number of
Turkish Armenians, including Hrant Dink, have been prosecuted in
Turkey for telling the truth about the Armenian genocide."

A delegation led by Prosecutor General of Armenia Gevorg Kostanyan,
who is also the Armenian government's representative at the European
Court of Human Rights (ECHR), has already left for Strasbourg.

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.

http://news.am/eng/news/290861.html
 

[Yervant1]

EUROPEAN COURT DELIVERS JUDGMENT IN PERINCEK V. SWITZERLAND CASE

14:18, 15 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

In today's Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Perincek v.

Switzerland (application no. 27510/08) the European Court of Human
Rights held, by a majority, that there had been: a violation of Article
10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned 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.

Being aware of the great importance attributed by the Armenian
community to the question whether those mass deportations and massacres
were to be regarded as genocide, the European Court of Human Rights
held that the dignity of the victims and the dignity and identity
of modernday Armenians were protected by Article 8 (right to respect
for private life) of the Convention.

The Court therefore had to strike a balance between two Convention
rights - the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect
for private life - taking into account the specific circumstances of
the case and the proportionality between the means used and the aim
sought to be achieved.

The Court concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic
society, to subject Mr Perincek to a criminal penalty in order to
protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case. In
particular, the Court took into account the following elements: Mr
Perincek's statements bore on a matter of public interest and did
not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance; the context in which
they were made had not been marked by heightened tensions or special
historical overtones in Switzerland; the statements could not be
regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian
community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in
Switzerland; there was no international law obligation for Switzerland
to criminalise such statements; the Swiss courts appeared to have
censured Mr Perincek simply for voicing an opinion that diverged
from the established ones in Switzerland; and the interference with
his right to freedom of expression had taken the serious form of a
criminal conviction.

http://www.armradio....itzerland-case/
 

[Yervant1]

Tert.am Perinçek wins case against Switzerland, loses to Armenia

15:40 • 15.10.15

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland.

The Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of expression. It concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic society, to subject the applicant to a criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case.

On the other hand, a number of not pro-Armenian wordings were removed from the judgment were edited in Armenia’s favor. That is, the fact of the Armenian Genocide is not called into question.

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland (application no. 27510/08) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been: a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
 

According to the Chamber judgment, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life) offers guarantees for the protection of the victims of Genocide and the modern day Armenians.

The Court thus tried to maintain a balance between the right to freedom of expression and private late, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the proportionality of the measures used and the the aim sought to be achieved.

The Court concluded that it had not been necessary, in a democratic society, to subject Mr Perinçek to a criminal penalty in order to protect the rights of the Armenian community at stake in the case.

According to the Court’s judgment, Perincek’s statement did not amount to a call for hatred or intolerance and could not be regarded as affecting the dignity of the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a criminal law response in Switzerland.

[Yervant1]

RIGHT TO DENY ARMENIAN GENOCIDE UPHELD BY EUROPEAN COURT IN BLOW TO AMAL CLOONEY

Dogu Perincek had the right to deny that Turkey conducted a genocide
of Armenians in 1915 during the First World War, court rules

Turkish politician Dogu Perincek from the left-wing Turkish Workers'
Party Photo: AFP/Getty

By Raziye Akkoc

12:01PM BST 15 Oct 2015

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that a
Turkishpolitician had the right to deny that a massacre of Armenians
during the Ottoman empire's rule in 1915 was a genocide.

The court said that when Dogu Perincek said the "Armenian genocide
is a great international lie", he should not have been found guilty
of racial discrimination in Switzerland.

The ECHR judges said that denying the genocide was not an attack on
the dignity of individuals in the Armenian community, overruling an
Armenian appeal presented in January by Amal Clooney.

Dogu Perincek, chairman of the Turkish Workers' Party, made his
comments about the genocide of up to 1.5 million Armenians - a fact
Turkey disputes as well as the number of those killed - in Switzerland
in 2005.

Switzerland-Armenia, a lobby group, soon after filed a criminal
complaint against him in July as it is against Swiss law to deny the
genocide as part of the country's anti-racism laws.

Mr Perincek was found guilty of racial discrimination in 2007 in
Switzerland because "his motives were of a racist tendency", according
to a later description of the case in an ECHR press release in 2013.

The Turkish national exhausted legal routes in Switzerland to appeal
the judgment but his appeal was dismissed and in June 2008, he lodged
an application to the ECHR complaining that his freedom of expression
was breached.

Luxembourg President of the European Court for Human Rights Dean
Spielmann ® speaks at the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg Photo: AFP/Getty

The Turkish government also submitted written comments as a third
partyquestioning the veracity of the genocide. In December 2013, the
ECHR agreed with Mr Perincek and said his conviction was "unjustified".

In January, Armenia challenged the ECHR's verdict and was represented
in the case by lawyers from Doughty Street Chambers in London.

Amal Clooney presented Armenia's case and accused Turkey of double
standards on freedom of expression for defending a Turkish Leftist.

She said that the Strasbourg judges initial judgement was wrong for
saying that the conviction was unjustified.

"It cast doubt of the reality of genocide that Armenian people suffered
a century ago," she said.

"Armenia must have its day in court. The stakes could not be higher
for the Armenian people."

http://www.telegraph...al-Clooney.html
 

[Yervant1]

SWITZERLAND'S ARMENIANS DEEPLY SHOCKED BY ECHR VERDICT IN PERINCEK CASE

14:49, 15.10.2015

The Switzerland-Armenia Association (SAA) which intervened before the
Grand Chamber as third party is appalled and deeply shocked by this
verdict, which comes the same year as the centennial commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide, the organization said in a statement.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
confirms the judgment previously delivered by the Court on December
17, 2013 in the case Perincek v. Switzerland.

To recall, it was the SAA that brought the original case before
Swiss courts.

"The SAA affirms that while freedom of expression is essential and
fundamental in a democratic society, it is not absolute. Freedom of
expression cannot be misused for rewriting history, particularly so
for seeking to deny or justify genocide, which is the most absolute
and heinous of crimes.

By the present judgment, the Grand Chamber basically challenges the
assessment made by

the Swiss courts, in breach of the basic principle of subsidiarity
upon which by the European

Convention on Human Rights relies.

This judgment undermines the solemn recognitions that occurred
during the commemoration of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide
that took place this year, including that of Pope Francis, ruled
last April 12th at the Vatican. The present international consensus
that the extermination of Armenians in 1915 constituted genocide is
a historically self-evident fact.

This cannot systematically be called into question.

The SAA can only note that it is Turkey which, from the beginning,
fomented and utilized Mr.

Perincek as the effective experimental 'salesman' of its campaign
for State denialism. The SAA solemnly calls upon member States of
the Council of Europe to take responsibility to pursue such cases of
denialism that effectively reflect an utter rejection of the values
by the Convention.

The SAA emphasizes that the judgment of the Court applies only in
respect of the proceedings leading to the conviction in Switzerland
of Mr. Perincek. It does not call into question the legality and
existence of the anti-racism norm, as it is in force in Switzerland.

This standard is not deemed contrary to the Convention, but rather
reinforces and validates its values and foundations," the statement
reads.

http://news.am/eng/news/290981.html
 

[Yervant1]

EUROPEAN COURT ISSUES CONTENTIOUS RULING ON PERINCEK CASE

10 mins ago 15/10/15

Armenia's Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan and Geoffrey Robertson
at Thursday's ECHR hearing

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.

Switzerland Says Perincek Ruling Violates ECHR

The Swiss Federal Department of Justice issued a terse rebuke to the
ECHR ruling, calling a violation of the court. Below is the text of
the statement as published on the ministry's official website.

By convicting Turkish citizen Dogu Perincek, Switzerland violated
his right to freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR). So ruled the Grand
Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with a majority
of 10:7 in its judgment announced today in Strasbourg. The judgment
is final and thus upholds the ECtHR Chamber judgment of 17 December
2013 in the same case. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), which
represented the Swiss government before the ECtHR, has acknowledged
with interest the judgment of the Grand Chamber.

On 9 March 2007, Turkish national Dogu Perincek was sentenced in
Canton Vaud to both a financial penalty and a criminal fine on the
basis of a criminal anti-racism provision in the Swiss Criminal Code
(Art. 261bis para. 4 CC) for denying the genocide of the Armenian
people. The Cantonal Court of Canton Vaud and the Federal Supreme Court
both rejected appeals against the judgment. In its Chamber judgment
of 17 December 2013, the European Court of Human Rights determined
that the Swiss courts' rulings violated the appellant's right to
freedom of expression. On 17 March 2014, Switzerland requested that
the case be reviewed by the Grand Chamber. The review was to clarify
the degree of discretion available to the Swiss prosecuting authorities
in applying criminal law to combat racism.

The judgment of the Grand Chamber confirms the great importance
that the ECtHR attaches to freedom of expression. It is too soon to
predict the legal consequences of this outcome. A thorough analysis
of the comprehensive judgment will be required before it becomes
clear whether its implementation will require the more restrained
application of anti-racism law, or legislative reform.

In addition, the Grand Chamber decided by 12 votes to five that its
determination of a breach of Art. 10 ECHR constituted sufficient
compensation for the non-pecuniary loss that Perincek had claimed. It
unanimously rejected all other compensation claims.

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.

Armenia's Prosecutor General's Office Issues Statement

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.

http://asbarez.com/1...-perincek-case/
 

[Yervant1]

ARMENIA OFFICIAL: THAT WAS WHAT WE WANTED FROM ECHR IN PERINCEK CASE

16:58, 15.10.2015
Region:World News, Armenia, Turkey
Theme: Politics

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.

http://news.am/eng/news/290989.html
 

[Yervant1]

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GENOCIDE AND HUMAN RIGHTS STUDIES

A Division of the Zoryan Institute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Shannon Scully
DATE: October 15, 2015 TEL: 416-250-9807

European Court of Human Rights Confirms the 1915 Massacres and
Mass-Deportations of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire

Strasbourg, France-- The European Court of Human Rights delivered a
Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland at a
public hearing today, October 15, 2015.

The lead counsel for the NGO Coalition (Turkish Human Rights
Association, Truth Justice Memory Centre and International Institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies), Professor Payam Akhavan of
McGill University in Canada, a former UN prosecutor at The Hague,
emphasized that the Court's Judgment "clearly, unanimously, and
emphatically confirmed the historical truth" of the 1915 Armenian
Genocide. In a divided opinion, the majority of ten judges held that
the Swiss judgment against Mr. Perincek's denial and minimization
of these events violated his freedom of speech under the European
Convention on Human Rights. However, seven judges, including the
President of the Court, held that "the massacres and deportations
suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is self-evident.

The Armenian genocide is a clearly established historical fact. To
deny it is to deny the obvious." The majority of ten judges also
confirmed "the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian
people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards" and
only differed in its view that it "has not authority to make legally
binding pronouncements" on whether these events "can be characterized
as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law".

Mr. Perincek himself did not deny that these atrocities did in fact
take place, but simply denied their characterization as "genocide" and
blamed the 1.5 Armenian victims for their own fate by portraying them
as "traitors" and "aggressors". The majority found that his statements
should not have been penalized by the Swiss courts, because they did
not pose a threat to Armenians in Switzerland. Professor Akhavan noted
that in doing so, "the majority did not give sufficient weight to the
convincing evidence submitted by the NGO Coalition, demonstrating
Mr. Perincek's racist motives by reference to his previous conduct
in Turkey, and its impact on the vulnerable Armenian minority that
has been subjected to a campaign of hate speech and violence." He
emphasized that "this aspect of the decision is unfortunate at a
time when there is an alarming increase in ultra-nationalist hate
speech and violence in Turkey. The fact that Mr. Perincek leads the
Talaat Pasha Committee (named after the "Ottoman Hitler") that the
European Parliament has characterized as a 'xenophobic and racist'
organization, is itself the most obvious evidence of his discriminatory
motives." Professor Akhavan regretted moreover, that the majority
disregarded the Istanbul Penal Court's finding in the Ergenekon trial
that Mr. Perincek had incited hatred and violence against Armenians,
on the grounds that instead of relevant excerpts, the NGO Coalition
should have produced the full 17,000 page judgment!

The dissenting opinion of the seven judges, including that of the
President, is highly significant, in asking:

Why should criminal sanctions for denial of the characterization of
the massacres of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 as "genocide" constitute
a violation of freedom of expression, whereas criminal sanctions for
Holocaust denial have been deemed compatible with the Convention?

According to Professor Akhavan, "the divided opinion of the Grand
Chamber, and the alarming increase in extremist violence in Turkey, is
the clearest indication that the question of racist hate speech against
Armenians is far from resolved, and that it will require constant
vigilance. What is clearly established by the Judgment however, is
unanimity among all seventeen judges, that the Armenians did in fact
suffer massacres and mass deportations at the hands of the Ottoman
Empire from 1915 onwards, irrespective of its legal characterization
one way or another."

The Zoryan Institute and its subsidiary, the International Institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, is the first non-profit,
international center devoted to the research and documentation of
contemporary issues with a focus on Genocide, Diaspora and Armenia.

Our mailing address is: The Zoryan Institute of Canada, Inc 255 Duncan
Mill Rd Suite 310 Toronto, ON M3B 3H9 Canada
 

[Yervant1]

EUROPEAN COURT CONFIRMS THE HISTORICAL TRUTH OF 1915 ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

19:04, 15 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
issued the following statement today after the European Court of Human
Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland:

"The European Court of Human Rights delivered a Grand Chamber judgment
in the case of Perincek v. Switzerland at a public hearing today,
October 15, 2015.

The lead counsel for the NGO Coalition (Turkish Human Rights
Association, Truth Justice Memory Centre and International Institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies), Professor Payam Akhavan of
McGill University in Canada, a former UN prosecutor at The Hague,
emphasized that the Court's Judgment "clearly, unanimously, and
emphatically confirmed the historical truth" of the 1915 Armenian
Genocide. In a divided opinion, the majority of ten judges held that
the Swiss judgment against Mr. Perincek's denial and minimization
of these events violated his freedom of speech under the European
Convention on Human Rights. However, seven judges, including the
President of the Court, held that "the massacres and deportations
suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is self-evident.

The Armenian genocide is a clearly established historical fact. To
deny it is to deny the obvious." The majority of ten judges also
confirmed "the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian
people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards" and
only differed in its view that it "has not authority to make legally
binding pronouncements" on whether these events "can be characterized
as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law".

Mr. Perincek himself did not deny that these atrocities did in fact
take place, but simply denied their characterization as "genocide" and
blamed the 1.5 Armenian victims for their own fate by portraying them
as "traitors" and "aggressors". The majority found that his statements
should not have been penalized by the Swiss courts, because they did
not pose a threat to Armenians in Switzerland. Professor Akhavan noted
that in doing so, "the majority did not give sufficient weight to the
convincing evidence submitted by the NGO Coalition, demonstrating
Mr. Perincek's racist motives by reference to his previous conduct
in Turkey, and its impact on the vulnerable Armenian minority that
has been subjected to a campaign of hate speech and violence." He
emphasized that "this aspect of the decision is unfortunate at a
time when there is an alarming increase in ultra-nationalist hate
speech and violence in Turkey. The fact that Mr. Perincek leads the
Talaat Pasha Committee (named after the "Ottoman Hitler") that the
European Parliament has characterized as a 'xenophobic and racist'
organization, is itself the most obvious evidence of his discriminatory
motives." Professor Akhavan regretted moreover, that the majority
disregarded the Istanbul Penal Court's finding in the Ergenekon trial
that Mr. Perincek had incited hatred and violence against Armenians,
on the grounds that instead of relevant excerpts, the NGO Coalition
should have produced the full 17,000 page judgment!

The dissenting opinion of the seven judges, including that of the
President, is highly significant, in asking:

Why should criminal sanctions for denial of the characterization of
the massacres of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 as "genocide" constitute
a violation of freedom of expression, whereas criminal sanctions for
Holocaust denial have been deemed compatible with the Convention?

According to Professor Akhavan, "the divided opinion of the Grand
Chamber, and the alarming increase in extremist violence in Turkey, is
the clearest indication that the question of racist hate speech against
Armenians is far from resolved, and that it will require constant
vigilance. What is clearly established by the Judgment however, is
unanimity among all seventeen judges, that the Armenians did in fact
suffer massacres and mass deportations at the hands of the Ottoman
Empire from 1915 onwards, irrespective of its legal characterization
one way or another."

The Zoryan Institute and its subsidiary, the International Institute
for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, is the first non-profit,
international center devoted to the research and documentation of
contemporary issues with a focus on Genocide, Diaspora and Armenia.

http://www.armradio....enian-genocide/
 

[Yervant1]

PERINCEK V. SWITZERLAND: ARMENIA SAYS THE EUROPEAN COURT SATISFIED ALL ITS CLAIMS

18:48, 15 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

The requirements set by the RA Government in case of Perincek v.

Switzerland were fully satisfied by the European Court, the Armenian
Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement.

In a judgment delivered today the European Court said Switzerland
had violated Turkish politician Dogu Perincek's right to freedom of
speech by convicting him for denying that the killing of Armenians
by Ottoman Turks in 1915 amounted to genocide.

Armenia was involved in the case as a third party. "By intervening
in the case as a third party, the Republic of Armenia expected the
European Court to exclude all kind of wording that would in any way
question the fact of the Armenian Genocide," the statement reads.

"In the judgment delivered today the European Court underlined that
it was neither required to answer that question, nor did it have
the authority to make legally binding pronouncements on whether the
1915 mass killing and deportation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
amounted to genocide as defined by international law," the Prosecutor
General's Office said.

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."

Finally, as regards the Perincek case, the Court ruled that subjecting
him to criminal penalty did not fully contradict the European case
law. Instead, it confirmed that the Swiss law had been applied wrongly.

"Therefore, the criminalization of the Armenian Genocide and the
criminal penalty is considered lawful. However, this should be done
exceptionally in compliance with the European Convention on Human
Rights," the Armenian Prosecutor General's Office said.

"Thus, all requirements set by the Armenian Government in case of
Perincek v. Switzerland were fully satisfied by the European Court,"
the statement concluded.

http://www.armradio....all-its-claims/
 

[Yervant1]

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON: ECHR JUDGMENT IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR ARMENIANS

18:59 15/10/2015 Â" POLITICS

"It is a good decision for the Armenians," lawyer Geoffrey Robertson
told the correspondent of Panorama.am in Strasbourg. Geoffrey Robertson
QC represented Armenia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
hearing of the case of Perincek v. Switzerland (no. 27510/08).

According to Mr. Robertson, three points are noteworthy when one reads
carefully the decision: first, it removes the lower chamber's ruling,
in which the court expressed doubts about the Armenian Genocide. The
upper chamber said it has no right to say anything in this regard. The
second important point is that the highest court of Europe has ruled
that the Armenian people has the right to respect and their opinions
of the Armenian Genocide shall be protected. There will be no doubt in
the future that Europe's highest court says the Armenians should be
respected for their history. It means that people could be convicted
of genocide denial as part of the fight against xenophobia, G.

Robertson said.

The most significant issue raised by the decision has to do with
Turkey's laws. According to G. Robertson, the Turkish Criminal Code
bans insulting Turkishness, due to which man Armenians in Tukey and
Turkey's intellectuals, including Hrant Dink, have been convicted.

Thus, this law of Turkey is not in line with the European Convention.

The ECHR judgment is significant and of importance for the Armenians,
the lawyer said.

When asked by the correspondent of Panorama.am if the decision
could become an obstacle later for criminalization of the Armenian
Genocide denial in other countries, Mr. Robertson replied that the
court confirmed that the Genocide denial should be condemned if it
involves xenophobia or violence, and Switzerland will not have to
change its law, but it should be applied carefully.

https://www.panorama...15/robertson-j/
 

[Yervant1]

SWITZERLAND SAYS TOO EARLY TO PREDICT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ECTHR RULING ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DENIAL CASE

21:17, 15 Oct 2015
Siranush Ghazanchyan

Switzerland's Federal Department of Justice and Police has issued a
statement concerning the European Court ruling in Perincek v.

Switzerland case. The statement reads:

By convicting Turkish citizen Dogu Perincek, Switzerland violated
his right to freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR). So ruled the Grand
Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with a majority
of 10:7 in its judgment announced today in Strasbourg. The judgment
is final and thus upholds the ECtHR Chamber judgment of 17 December
2013 in the same case. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), which
represented the Swiss government before the ECtHR, has acknowledged
with interest the judgment of the Grand Chamber.

On 9 March 2007, Turkish national Dogu Perincek was sentenced in
Canton Vaud to both a financial penalty and a criminal fine on the
basis of a criminal anti-racism provision in the Swiss Criminal Code
(Art. 261bis para. 4 CC) for denying the genocide of the Armenian
people. The Cantonal Court of Canton Vaud and the Federal Supreme Court
both rejected appeals against the judgment. In its Chamber judgment of
17 December 2013, the European Court of Human Rights determined that
the Swiss courts' rulings violated the appellant's right to freedom of
expression. On 17 March 2014, Switzerland requested that the case be
reviewed by the Grand Chamber. The review was to clarify the degree of
discretion available to the Swiss prosecuting authorities in applying
criminal law to combat racism.The judgment of the Grand Chamber
confirms the great importance that the ECtHR attaches to freedom
of expression. It is too soon to predict the legal consequences
of this outcome. A thorough analysis of the comprehensive judgment
will be required before it becomes clear whether its implementation
will require the more restrained application of anti-racism law,
or legislative reform.

In addition, the Grand Chamber decided by 12 votes to five that its
determination of a breach of Art. 10 ECHR constituted sufficient
compensation for the non-pecuniary loss that Perincek had claimed. It
unanimously rejected all other compensation claims.

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.

http://www.armradio....de-denial-case/
 

[Yervant1]

EU COURT RULES IN FAVOUR OF TURKISH POLITICIAN OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DENIAL

Middle East Eye
Oct 15 2015

Dogu Perincek described the ruling as 'a defense of the country'

by Alex MacDonald

EU court rules in favour of Turkish politician over Armenian Genocide
denial

#TurkishPolitics

Dogu Perincek described the ruling as 'a defense of the country'

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in favour of a
Turkish politician convicted in a Swiss court for denying the 1915
Armenian Genocide.

Dogu Perincek, leader of the small left-wing nationalist Patriotic
Party in Turkey, was convicted of genocide denial by a Swiss district
court in 2007, after he referred to the Armenian Genocide as a "great
international lie" at a rally in Lausanne in 2005.

However, after years of intense legal battles, the ECHR ruled on
Thursday that the Swiss court had violated Perincek's rights to
free expression.

"The Swiss courts appeared to have censured Mr Perincek simply
for voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones
in Switzerland, and the interference with his right to freedom of
expression had taken the serious form of a criminal conviction,"
the court said.

Following the announcement, Perincek tweeted that the ruling had been
a victory for Turkish "independence."

"This is not a historical debate or legal dispute. This is a defense
of the country. A fight for independence!" he tweeted.

Perincek and the Patriotic Party, previously a Maoist organisation,
have long argued that the 1915 Armenian Genocide - in which as many as
1.5 million Armenian were thought to have been killed by Turkish forces
- was a conspiracy created by the US, Armenia and the EU as a form of
"imperialist aggression" aimed at undermining Turkish sovereignty.

"Patriotic Party struggles against all kinds of imperialist aggression
toward Turkey," said the party on their website.

"The US led imperialist forces are increasing the campaign against
Turkey regarding the so-called Armenian genocide allegations in the
last decade. The US and the EU have been adopting resolutions in their
parliaments which accuse Turkey and even consider the Turkish War of
Independence as a crime against humanity."

In 2013, the ECHR ruled in favour of Perincek, but Switzerland
appealed the verdict, with Armenia requesting to join the lawsuit as
a co-plaintiff.

Amal Alamuddin Clooney, representing Armenia, claimed that the ECHR
ruling had not taken into account documents from 1915 and warned that
the ruling "cast doubt on the reality of genocide.

However, Thursday's ruling stated that Perincek's comments could not
be regarded as affecting the dignity of Armenians to the point of
needing the response of Swiss criminal law.

28 countries recognise the events that took place during the dying
days of the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.

The governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey have both denied the killings
as genocide, however, while acknowledging a large number of Armenian
deaths took place during the First World War.

Controversy erupted in April as Turkey held its 100-year commemorations
of the Battle of Gallipoli on the same day as Armenia commemorated
the 100-year anniversary of the Genocide.

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan claimed that Turkey had moved the
commemorations to intentionally clash with the other anniversary.

"What purpose is served here if not to divert world attention from the
activities marking the centennial of the Armenian genocide? Turkey
has a much more important responsibility towards their people and
all mankind: recognition and condemnation of the Armenian genocide,"
wrote Sargsyan on his Facebook page.

http://www.middleeas...enial-240050098
 

[Yervant1]

GEOFFREY ROBERTSON. "ECHR JUDGMENT MEANS THAT PEOPLE CAN BE CONVICTED OF GENOCIDE DENIAL."

October 16 2015

The Grand Chamber of the European Court announced the judgment
on Perincek v. Switzerland. The judgment defines that the Swiss
legislation was not properly applied against Perincek, in other words,
Switzerland has violated the right to freedom of expression against
Dogu Perincek. However, Armenia's demands as a third party are met
in the sense that the expressions that can somehow question the fact
of genocide are eliminated from the judgment. Note that the Turkish
nationalist politician Perincek Dogu has denied the fact of the
Armenian Genocide in Switzerland and was sentenced to prison. He had
appealed to the ECHR, which has satisfied Dogu's claim, mentioning in
the records that a restriction of freedom of expression was applied
against the plaintiff. The Swiss Justice Minister announced in March
that Switzerland will apply to the ECHR with a counter-claims to defend
the country's interests. Esentially, today, the ECHR made a compromise
judgment for all the parties were satisfied with the judgment. After
the announcement of the judgment, Dogu Perincek considered the Court's
judgment historical and announced, "Knowing the European traditions
on Freedom of Expression, another decision was not expected. Our
confidence in the European court became firmer today."

One of the members of the Armenian delegation on Perincek v.

Switzerland, human rights defender of the international level,
Geoffrey Robertson, noted that this is actually a good judgment for
Armenia. Commenting of the judgment, he said, "The European Court
decided that the Armenians have the right for their historical past
to be respected and their dignity restored. This judgment fully means
that people can be convicted of the genocide denial." According to
Robertson, simply the Swiss prosecutors have applied the legislation
against Perincek wrongly. "In convicting Perincek, their mistake
was that Perincek was the most common provoker, his statements were
senseless and worthless, these statements could not say anything to
a reasonable person, hence, the European Court considered it wrong
to convict him for it."

Tatev HARUTYUNYAN

Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2015/10/16/172507/

[Yervant1]

Euractiv , EU
Oct 16 2015

Human Rights Court: Denial of Armenian genocide is not a crime


The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Thursday (15 October) that
a Turkish politician should not have been prosecuted for denying that
the mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey in 1915 was a
genocide.

Switzerland had violated the Turkish politician's right to freedom of
speech by convicting him for denying that the killing of Armenians by
Ottoman Turks in 1915 amounted to genocide, the Court ruled.

In a landmark free speech ruling, the ECHR judges ruled by 10 votes to
seven that Dogu Perincek, chairman of Turkey's Patriotic Party, should
never have been convicted of racial discrimination by a Swiss court
for saying that the "Armenian genocide is a great international lie".

Perincek was convicted and fined in 2007 after a series of press
conferences on the topic, which the ECHR ruled was an infringement on
his right to free speech.

In its judgement, the court said Perincek's statements related to an
issue of "public interest and did not amount to a call for hatred or
intolerance ... and could not be regarded as affecting the dignity of
the members of the Armenian community to the point of requiring a
criminal law response".

The court made a clear distinction with Holocaust denial, whose
specific history meant it could always be "seen as a form of
incitement to racial hatred" in certain countries.

Its judges have earlier noted that the historical facts of the
Holocaust, "such as the existence of gas chambers" were "considered
clearly established by an international jurisdiction".

Sensitive debate

The events of 1915 are a highly sensitive issue both in Turkey and
among Armenians in Armenia and in the diaspora. Muslim Turkey accepts
that Christian Armenians were killed by Ottoman forces during World
War One, but denies there was any systematic attack on civilians
amounting to genocide.

Perincek tweeted his reaction, presenting the case as part of a
national struggle reaching back into the early years of the 20th
century when the modern Turkish state emerged.

"This is not a historical debate or legal dispute. This is a defence
of the country. A fight for independence!" he said.

The Strasbourg-based court said in a statement it had ruled that it
was not necessary to criminally convict Perincek to protect the rights
of the Armenian community.

"The Swiss courts appeared to have censured Mr Perincek simply for
voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in
Switzerland, and the interference with his right to freedom of
expression had taken the serious form of a criminal conviction," the
court said.

Perincek had been ordered to pay a number of fines, suspended for two
years, and 1,000 Swiss francs in compensation to the
Switzerland-Armenia Association for non-pecuniary damage.

Decision left to international criminal courts

The ECHR said it did not have the authority to rule on whether the
Armenian killings were a genocide or not, which was a job for
international criminal courts.

It also accepted that "the dignity of the victims and the dignity and
identity of modern-day Armenians were protected by Article 8" of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

But it ruled that in the specific circumstances of the case, a
democratic society should not have gone as far as prosecuting Perincek
over his comments.

"The context in which they were made had not been marked by heightened
tensions or special historical overtones in Switzerland," the ruling
said.

"The Swiss courts appeared to have censured Mr Perincek simply for
voicing an opinion that diverged from the established ones in
Switzerland," it added.

The ECHR's Grand Chamber ruling is final and binding on all Council of
Europe members.

Perincek's lawyer Laurent Pech has earlier said that his client
"neither contested nor defended the massacres," but merely denied that
the Ottoman authorities of the time had a genocidal intention.

Armenia: Judgement is 'very good result'

Even though the ECHR ruling went in Perincek's favour, it was welcomed
by Armenia's government, which said that although the Turkish
politician was exonerated, the court had recognised Armenians right to
protection against hate speech.

"It means that states in Europe can punish Armenian genocide denial if
it is calculated to incite violence or racial disharmony," Armenia's
prosecutor general Gevorg Kostanyan said in a statement.

"The judgement is a very good result for Armenia and for Armenians," he added.

That interpretation was backed by Geoffrey Robertson, the high-profile
British lawyer representing Armenia, who said the ruling clearly
stated Armenians had "a right to respect for their history".

The Swiss authorities were indeed wrong to prosecute Perincek,
Robertson added, but only because he was "a worthless provocateur".


Background

The European Parliament backed a motion earlier this year that calls
the massacre a century ago of up to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman
Turkish forces a "genocide".

MEPs stressed the need for Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide,
so as to pave way for `genuine reconciliation'.

Muslim Turkey agrees that Christian Armenians were killed in clashes
with Ottoman forces that began on 15 April, 1915, when large numbers
of Armenians lived in the empire ruled by Istanbul, but denies that
this amounted to genocide.

Some European and South American countries use the term to describe
the killings, but the United States and some others, keen to maintain
good relations with an important ally, avoid doing so. Germany has
long resisted using the term `genocide' but the government recently
changed its mind.


Turkey is a candidate country to join the 28-nation EU but accession
talks have dragged on for years with little progress.


http://www.euractiv....ot-crime-318582
 

[Yervant1]

EuroTopics, EU
Oct 18 2015

Holocaust not more important than Armenian genocide


The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that denying the
Armenian genocide is not an incitement to racial hatred and should
therefore not be punishable by law. With their decision the judges are
making awkward comparisons, the centre-left daily Tages-Anzeiger
complains: "The problem is not so much that a person who denies the
Armenian genocide will now go unpunished. ¦ Far more worrying is that
the ECHR is treating genocides differently. Those who deny the
Holocaust are automatically inciting racial hatred, but those who deny
the Armenian genocide don't necessarily do so with the intention of
inciting hatred. This distinction is incomprehensible. Whether the
Armenians and Turks will ever reconcile is questionable. The ECHR's
ruling has weakened the position of the minority and therefore
achieved nothing in terms of mediating between the two peoples."


http://www.eurotopic...menian-genocide

[Yervant1]

To Ban Genocide Denial, Court Incites
Armenians to Commit Violence
By Harut Sassouian
Publisher, The California Courier
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

In the case of Dogu Perincek vs. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sustained in a 10-7 vote the
Turkish politician's right to free expression, finding that Swiss
courts had wrongly convicted him for denying the Armenian Genocide.
More importantly for Armenians, the Grand Chamber contradicted the
Lower Chamber's unwarranted opinion of Dec. 17, 2013, which had
questioned the validity of the Armenian Genocide. On October 15, 2015,
ECHR's Grand Chamber rectified that jurisdictional issue, ruling that
the Court was =80=9Cnot required to determine whether the massacres
and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of
the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterized as genocide
within the meaning of that term under international law, but has no
authority to make legally binding pronouncements, one way or another,
on this point.' This was the judgment of the majority of 10 judges who
ruled in favor of Perincek.
The remaining seven judges, not only disagreed with the majority's
ruling in support of Perincek, but went on to set the record straight
on the Armenian Genocide: `That the massacres and deportations
suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is
self-evident.... The Armenian genocide is a clearly established
historical fact. 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 [limited room to maneuver], to make it a
criminal offence to insult the memory of a people that has suffered
genocide. In our view, this is indeed possible,' the seven judges
wrote in their dissenting opinion.
Nevertheless, the Grand Chamber still reached some unwarranted
conclusions that defy logic and common sense. The majority of the
judges advanced the meaningless argument that since 90 years had
passed between Perincek's statements and `the tragic events' of 1915,
there was no need for Switzerland to regulate his speech. Supposedly,
the passage of time had made his denial less traumatic on
Armenians. As the dissenting seven judges pointed out, the majority's
position violates `the principle that statutory limitations are not
applicable to war crimes and crimes against humanity.'
The majority of the judges also put forward a questionable argument to
justify why denying the Holocaust was a crime, and not a violation of
freedom of expression. They considered Holocaust denial an
`antidemocratic ideology' and `anti-Semitism,' whereas they claimed
that Perincek's denial of the Armenian Genocide did not result `in
serious friction between Armenians and Turks' in
Switzerland. Furthermore, while asserting that there was a direct link
between Holocaust denial and many of the European `States which had
experienced the Nazi horrors,' they found no such link between
Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide.
There are several problems in the Judges preceding arguments:
-- There should not be a double standard in dealing with denial of any
genocide. If denial of the Holocaust is a crime, so should the denial
of other genocides. The preferential treatment of victims of certain
genocides, but not others, is shameful and disgraceful. As editor of a
newspaper in the United States, I naturally support the highly
protective American notion of freedom of expression rather than the
European model of a more restrictive freedom of speech. However,
regardless of which legal system one adheres to, discrimination among
genocide victims is not acceptable.
-- Majority of the judges repeatedly claimed that since Perincek's
denial did not result in causing public disorder by the Armenian
community, Swiss courts should not have convicted him. Ironically, by
making such a dangerous assertion, the Grand Chamber is actually
inciting Armenians to resort to violence to satisfy the Court's
requirement that genocide denial could only be criminalized if it is
followed by some sort of violent reaction. Since Swiss-Armenians acted
in a civilized manner by calling the police and filing a lawsuit
instead of bashing Perincek's head, they are now being told that their
legal claim is invalid because they did not cause a public
disturbance!
-- It is historically wrong to state that there was no link between
Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide. Over 400,000 Swiss citizens
signed a petition in 1890's to protest the Hamidian massacres. Swiss
missionaries saved countless orphans during the Genocide and helped
provide new homes for them in Switzerland.
Fortunately, the Grand Chamber did not require Switzerland to amend
its laws on genocide denial, implying that the law was simply
misapplied in Perincek's case. Therefore, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia
also do not need to change their laws on criminalizing denial of the
Armenian Genocide.
Thankfully, the Court rejected Perincek's claim that he is entitled to
135,000 euros ($142,000) in damages and court costs.
International lawyers Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney, and
Armenia's Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan should be commended for
their exceptional efforts in representing Armenia in Court and
defending the truth of the Armenian Genocide.

[Yervant1]

TAGESANZEIGER: ECHR FINDS WEARING HIJAB MORE LEGAL THAN DENYING GENOCIDE OF ENTIRE NATION

00:04, 20.10.2015
Region:World News, Armenia
Theme: Politics, Analytics

"Those who deny the Holocaust call on racist hatred, but those who
deny the Armenian Genocide turn out not to propagate hatred. One
thing is unclear: Why does the European Court in Strasbourg make
such a distinction?" Felix Schindler, editor of the Swiss magazine
Tagesanzeiger writes in his article, referring to the judgment of
the ECHR on the case Dogu Perincek v. Switzerland.

The author writes that Switzerland took a decision on criminalizing
the Genocide denial. "Our people singled out the red democratic thread
in this issue; racists cannot circumvent it. The judges decided that
Armenian pogroms were a Genocide. But at the same time, Switzerland
has no right to sue nationalist Dogu Perincek if he starts denying
the Armenian Genocide in our country," Schindler writes.

The editor is outraged by the fact that the ECHR makes distinction
between genocides. "Those who deny the Holocaust call on racist hatred,
but those who deny the Armenian Genocide turn out not to propagate
hatred. Why must there be such a difference?" the author asks.

According to Schindler, the judgment of the ECHR is unlikely to
contribute to the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. "Whether the
Armenians and Turks will reach reconciliation is another big question.

I don't think the latest decision will result in that." Schindler also
recalls the same court siding with the national minority in France
when the Muslim women were banned from wearing hijab in public places.

"Actually, ECHR finds wearing hijab more legal than the denial of
the Genocide of an entire nation," the author stresses.

http://www.tagesanze.../story/11906265

http://news.am/eng/news/291506.html
 

[Yervant1]

"IT IS A NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT PERINCEK IS A WINNER"

October 20 2015

According to the Turkologist Gevorg Petrosyan, the ECHR decision
could be affected by the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

On October 15, the Armenian and Turkish media spotlight was the ECHR
Grand Chamber's judgment for "Perincek v. Switzerland". The judgment
of the European Supreme Court was in favor of the Turkish nationalist
leader and the Turkish Workers' Party leader Dogu Perincek. He is
known for his activities against the international recognition of
the Armenian Genocide.

Armenia was involved in the case as a third party. On the day of
declaring the judgment, the statement issued by the RA Prosecutor's
office mentioned that all the requirements of Armenia's Government
presented to the European Court were satisfied. In contrast to this,
Turkey, at the state level represented by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, stated that according to the judgment, the events of 1915
are the subject of legal proceedings, and the expression of opinions
about the occurrence is protected by freedom of expression. The 1915
events cannot be compared with the Holocaust in any way.

Turkologist Gevorg Petrosyan, in conversation with "Aravot", referring
to the ECHR judgment, said, "If the denial of historic justice is
viewed in the frame of freedom of expression, it already becomes a
negative development and can be the precedent." The Turkologist does
not give a legal assessment to the case, saying that the case needs to
be investigated by the international lawyers, however, as a specialist,
he sees political motives in this case.

"Most interestingly is the stance of the Turkish side in this issue
and the fact that in Turkey this case is considered a national case.

The Turkish media presented this judgment as a national victory. It
should be noted that Perincek was allowed to be present at the trial
by the decision of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. The Turkish court
had banned him from leaving the country. So, we need to understand
that with the Perincek case, Turkey shows that his denial policy is
ongoing and it supports Perincek at the state level."

Mr. Petrosyan considered the fact expected that the European Court
does not treat the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide in the same way,
he says that this attitude has years-old tradition. Talking about the
statement issued by the Prosecutor's Office, the Turkologist notes
that if we look at the legal point of view, the judgment perhaps
should not have a reason for complaint. "But anyway, the fact that
Perincek is declared a winner, it is a negative development."

This year, the world attention was captured by the events organized
pertaining to the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, an
occurrence happened one century ago was recognized as a genocide by
many countries. This fact, according to the Turkologist, could not
and did not have a direct impact on the ECHR judgment.

HRIPSIME HOVHANNISYAN "Aravot" daily

Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2015/10/20/172547/