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.