Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairperson, dear colleagues
I would like to welcome the initiative of comprehensive improvement of the institutions providing for the international judicial protection of human rights. For assuring its effectiveness, we should be prepared from the very beginning to pay adequate attention to a number of challenges we are already facing, which, given a fertile ground, would simply lead to the failure of any good initiative.
I do not intend to cover in detail the positions of the Armenian delegation with regard to such and other similar issues, for those have been submitted to the organisers in a separate document.
Rather, I would like to address certain essential issues. Firstly, in my opinion, we should be consistent in assuring that both national judicial instances and the European Court of Human Rights are able to avoid the threat of resolving purely political issues, and moreover, becoming a tool to that end. Unfortunately, procedures in place reserve abundant possibilities for the High Court to engage, whether they wish so or not, in the resolution of purely political issues.
The abundance of improper and ill-founded complaints is really distressing, but it should justly be mentioned that their majority is arranged by the political forces that aim to resolve merely political issues and exert political pressure rather than uphold the protection of human rights.
It is not, after all, surprising that within a short period of time several hundred complaints were received, identical both in terms of their content and form. This trick, by the way, is used not only for gaining a dominant position in international relations, but also for exerting mutual pressures between the opposition and the authorities in national politics. Please note that this does not refer to justified influence.
I believe that the above statements suggest the necessity to clearly distinguish the inter-state cases from private ones.
Thus, we should accept that the profusion of complaints is often conditioned not by the lack of legal knowledge or unawareness of the case law of the Court, but rather by the intention of forces adept in the sphere to realise certain plans. I would like to add that the Court, being drawn into such complex political issues, is eventually deprived of the opportunity to realise its inherent mission.
I do not intend to dwell upon all the issues from the political perspective, for it is obvious that the difficulties can be coped with only through introduction of adequate legal solutions. In my subsequent speech, I will try to cover the measures that we have elaborated.
Thank you for attention.
Gevorg Danielyan Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia Doctor, Professor of Jurisprudence
18.02.2010
Speech
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairperson, dear colleagues
I would like to express my agreement with the representatives of the European Court and my colleagues who find that the scope of reforms should also cover the entire national system – both judicial instances and competent public authorities.
I would therefore like to provide, in brief, the list of the measures that we favour most:
- Within the framework of revising the laws, drafts are necessarily considered from the perspective of the requirements of the case law of the European Court. Meanwhile, the institute of social impact assessment of legal acts has been introduced, enabling to foresee the potential consequences of the given act with regard to the guarantees for human rights;
- Judgments of the European Court will soon be considered as new circumstances for reviewing final judicial acts;
- Relations pertaining to unconditional enforcement of the judgments of the European Court as well as to the liability of responsible public officials have received a clear-cut regulation.
National reforms in this area are underway. However, I would like to note that we are counting on adequate reforms at international level as well. The following issues are of particular importance to us:
- Separation of the complaints concerning human rights violations from the issues related to inter-state disputes, and establishment of special procedures for the examination of the latter;
- Introduction of judicial fees, by prescribing certain exemptions for indigent persons;
- Fundamental revision of procedures for providing for compensation as this is a matter of exclusively domestic character and creates an undue burden for the international judicial instance.
We are confident that we have the same objectives and goal, and certain inevitable disagreements may not hinder the accomplishment of the undertaken reforms.
As I have already mentioned, we have presented our remarks in a systematic manner with a separate document. Hereby, I would like to conclude my speech.
Meanwhile, I would like to extend my gratitude to the organisers of this event and to our Swiss colleagues on behalf of the Armenian delegation.
Thank you for attention.
Gevorg Danielyan Minister of Justice of the Republic of Armenia Doctor, Professor of Jurisprudence
19.02.2010
Date of public Wednesday 24 February 2010 - 13:24:34 | Comments: 0
|02.11.2009| Gevorg Danielyan: Genocide denial must be criminally punishable offence
NEWS.am: Mr. Danielyan, how well, in terms of law, is Armenia prepared for the possible reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border, and what has to be done for this?
Answer: To be fully prepared for the reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border – in terms of law as well – we have for a long time been carrying out necessary work following the Armenian President’s instructions. In general, we plan to introduce amendments to the law, which, on the one hand, would legally rule out all threats to national security and, on the other hand, create favorable conditions for developing effective bilateral cooperation and protecting citizens’ rights. This is a most complicated process, which is impossible to outline. Moreover, haste may seriously affect the priorities.
NEWS.am: Many people voice concern that Turks may purchase lands the borderlands. Are the concerns well founded?
Answer: I am sure that the concerns are unfounded in the context of both legal and political decisions. The matter does not concern Turks alone. Restricting property rights of foreign individuals and legal entities in some territories meets the national security interests. In this context, I cannot understand the political figures that speak of the borderline regions alone, which you have mentioned in your question. We should not set limits on lands alone. This principle must equally apply to any immovable property – not only private property, but also property right (leasing, free use, etc..).
The security zone embraces both some of the borderline regions and state territories that are of special importance in terms of national security. As regards the claims that foreign citizens can purchase lands under assumed names (and, in this context, it is reasonable to permit them to legally do it for the process to be transparent), they are not serious. The persons making the claims are unprofessional. It is clear that persons who aim at undermining the state’s security will never act transparently.
Incidentally, under Article 35 of the Turkish Law “On land registration”, foreign citizens and commercial organizations have the right to purchase immovable property in Turkey on reciprocal terms. Another law, “On confined military zones and security belts”, prohibits foreign citizens and legal entities from purchasing immovable property in such areas. By citing these numerous examples I consider it advisable to stress that the reciprocity principle makes us take preventive measures.
NEWS.am: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) proposes a law stipulating punishment for denial of genocide. Do you share this opinion? If not, why?
Answer: Your question needs specifying. The ARF cannot propose such a law for me to be “for” or “against” it. Article 379/1 of the RA Criminal Code stipulates punishment not only for denying genocide, but also for denying, encouraging, justifying or belittling the gravity of crimes against humanity.
NEWS.am: The ARF’s position is that criminal punishment be stipulated for denying the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia. They propose that five, rather than four, years of imprisonment be stipulated…
Answer: We have proposed more radical solutions to the Government. First, we proposed a complete revision of the article and removal of the motive-related signs. Thus, the denial of genocide must involve criminal responsibility irrespective of the motives (racial, ethnic, religious, stirring up hatred, discrimination, violence, etc..). This position is in harmony with the bill proposed by the ARF. We think, however, that all the motive-related signs should be removed. They should be viewed as imparting quality to a deed, which must be decisive in determining severer punishment.
I do no think that we should single out the Armenian Genocide by imposing severer punishment – a year more – for it. It is politically unacceptable either: we must regard each case of genocide recognized by the Republic of Armenia as a punishable offence. It is just more significant when we denounce the Armenian Genocide by adopting our own politico-legal acts, which contain unequivocal appraisals. It should be noted that the state recognizes the crime both by adopting relevant statutory acts and by acceding to relevant international documents. Specifically, the Supreme Council adopted the law “On denouncing the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915” on November 22, 1988.
NEWS.am: Did Armenia really have to recognize Turkey’s present-day borders to establish relations with it? Why did the Armenian side agree?
Answer: In this respect claims are being made that this implicitly “legalized” the different treaties signed in the past, which run counter to our national interests. I would like to specify that an international agreement signed and ratified in conformity with the established order can have legal force for our state. This requirement is set by Article 6 of the RA Constitution. I do not think that there are people who may claim that different interpretations of the Protocols will make our state recognize the legal force of, for example, the Treaty of Sèvres.
Date of public Monday 02 November 2009 - 19:00:11 | Comments: 0
