Armenian News A Topalian: These are the articles so far on the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber binding judgement on the Perincek case. It is a complex verdict that will both significantly disappoint and partially please.
Worth reading to the end for the varying analyses and opinions.
The court made a distinction with Holocaust denial, which judges
Strasbourg, France-- The European Court of Human Rights delivered a
Mr. Perin ç ek himself did not deny that these atrocities did in fact take
The dissenting opinion of the seven judges, including that of the President,
The Zoryan Institute and its subsidiary, the International Institute for Genocide
news.am
asbarez.com
STRASBOURG, France— The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday issued a contentious ruling in the case of Perinçek vs. Switzerland, which concerned the criminal conviction by Switzerland of Turkish politician Dogu Perinçek for publicly challenging the existence of the Armenian Genocide.
While the ruling upholds Perinçek’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. In January , the two were joined by Robertson’s associate Amal Clooney in presenting the appeal.
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 onward 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, Perinçek “had not expressed contempt or hatred for the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years.”
Robertson was upbeat about the ruling, saying it was “a good decision for Armenians.”
He highlighted three noteworthy points from the decision, the first being that Thursday ’s judgment reversed the lower court’s ruling, which expressed doubts about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Robertson explained that the ruling by the Grand Chamber, as it is known, affirmed that it had no right to make such a distinction.
The second element that emerged from Thursday ’s ruling was that Armenians were protected in their assertion of the Armenian Genocide, signaling that in the future individuals could be held accountable—by law—for denying the Genocide if their comments are viewed as inciting hatred or xenophobia.
The most significant turning point, however, according to Robertson, is that Thursday ’s ruling suggested that Article 301 of Turkey’s Criminal Code, which stipulated punishment for “insulting Turkishness” can now be deemed in direct contradiction to the ECHR ruling.
“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 Perinçek 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 Karampetian, President of the EAFJD.
“A sharply divided European Court for Human Rights failed to consistently apply fundamental principles of law and justice in the Perinçek case, resulting in a mixed decision. The court’s conflicted and contradictory judgment, while offering deeply troubling protection for hate speech, does create meaningful new opportunities for progress in ending Turkey’s denials and ultimately reaching a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” said Kate Nahapetian, the Governmental Affairs Director of the Armenian National Committee of America,
Seven Jurists issue dissent to ECHR decision
The 134-page ruling includes three dissenting opinions, including a dissent submitted by 7 judges from the panel, most notably the President of the European Court of Human Rights Dean Spielmann.
“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-defense, 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 Perinçek 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.
Robertson, Clooney Issue Statement on ECHR Ruling
LONDON—After the ruling Thursday by the European Court of Human Rights on the Perinçek vs. Switzerland case, in which the court maintained the legality of laws criminalizing genocide denial, yet upheld the defendant’s right to freedom of speech, the lead counsels representing Armenia, Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney issued the following statement:
We are pleased that the European Court of Human Rights today endorsed our argument on behalf of the Government of Armenia, which intervened in the case between Dogu Perinçek and Switzerland. The decision is a victory for Armenia.
Today the European Court ruled that the applicant’s freedom of speech should not have been restrained because it was not likely to incite violence or racial hatred. Thus Perinçek should not have been prosecuted by the Swiss authority because his rant, in the Turkish language, would have had no impact at all on social harmony and race relations in Switzerland.
Armenia intervened in the case for one reason: the lower court had cast doubt on the fact that a genocide against the Armenian people occurred in 1915. As counsel we sought to correct this grave error, and the Grand Chamber has done so. Today ’s judgment did not dispute the fact of the Armenian genocide: ten judges said the question should not have been addressed at all whilst seven stated that “the Armenian genocide is a clearly established historic fact”.
The judgment also upholds the Armenians’ right under European law to have their dignity respected and protected, including by recognition of a communal identity forged through suffering from the annihilation of over half their race by the Ottoman Turks (see para 227).
The court’s decision upholding the importance of freedom of expression has important consequences for Turkey, which has the worst record of any state before the European Court on free speech. Turkey can no longer justify prosecuting those like Hrant Dink who are accused of “insulting Turkishness” contrary to article 301 of the Penal Code by writing about the reality of the Armenian genocide. These prosecutions are plainly contrary to the free speech guarantee under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted in the Perinçek case. We call on Turkey to abolish article 301 and cease malicious prosecutions pursued on its terms.
Perinçek is a provocateur who should not have been made the martyr that he was so keen to become. We note that the Court rejected his demand for 120,000 euro compensation, and awarded him nothing – not even his own legal fees.
This case has already been misrepresented in the British press. For example The Telegraph characterizes the judgment in its headline as being “… a blow to Amal Clooney…”. Ms Clooney and Mr Robertson appeared for Armenia as a third party, which was concerned to ensure that the Armenian genocide was not put in doubt by Europe’s human rights court. They took no position on Perinçek’s guilt or innocence. The only ‘blow’ was to the defendant state – i.e. Switzerland, the prosecuting state which they did not represent, and to Turkey which cannot now quote the European Court when it seeks to cast doubt on the Armenian genocide.
bbc.co.
15.10.15
European court quashes Swiss conviction for genocide denial
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a Turkish politician
15.10.15
European court quashes Swiss conviction for genocide denial
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a Turkish politician
should not have been prosecuted for denying that the mass killing of
Armenians by Ottoman Turkey was a genocide.
Judges ruled by 10 votes to seven that Dogu Perincek's 2007 conviction
Judges ruled by 10 votes to seven that Dogu Perincek's 2007 conviction
for racial discrimination by a Swiss court infringed his right to free speech.
Mr Perincek had said "the Armenian genocide is a big fat lie".
The ECHR ruled that Mr Perincek had not called for "hatred or
Mr Perincek had said "the Armenian genocide is a big fat lie".
The ECHR ruled that Mr Perincek had not called for "hatred or
intolerance".
The chairman of Turkey's left-wing Patriotic Party used a series of
The chairman of Turkey's left-wing Patriotic Party used a series of
press conferences in 2005 to blame Western countries and Tsarist
Russia for stoking tensions between Muslims and Armenians to
undermine the Ottoman Empire, and argued that the resulting deaths
in 1915 were not a premeditated attempt to wipe out an ethnic group.
The ECHR found that his statements related to an issue of
The ECHR found that his statements related to an issue of
"public interest" 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 distinction with Holocaust denial, which judges
said could always be seen as a form of incitement to racial hatred
in certain countries.
[the majority of judges seem unaware of the significance of the word
'Armenian' as used and understood by the Turkish and Azeri population]
'Punished for an opinion'
Denying that the Armenian killings were a genocide is illegal in
Denying that the Armenian killings were a genocide is illegal in
Switzerland as well as Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece.
Turkey denies committing genocide and says 500,000 people died,
Turkey denies committing genocide and says 500,000 people died,
not 1.5 million as claimed by Armenia.
The ECHR said it was up to international criminal courts to decide
The ECHR said it was up to international criminal courts to decide
whether the killings were a genocide .
But it ruled that the Swiss courts appeared to have punished
But it ruled that the Swiss courts appeared to have punished
Mr Perincek "simply for voicing an opinion that diverged from the
established ones in Switzerland".
The ECHR's Grand Chamber ruling is final and binding on all Council
The ECHR's Grand Chamber ruling is final and binding on all Council
of Europe members.
The Swiss government said it would examine the judgement to assess
The Swiss government said it would examine the judgement to assess
whether any change was required to its anti-racism law.
armradio.am
EUROPEAN COURT DELIVERS JUDGMENT IN PERINCEK
V. SWITZERLAND CASE
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.
telegraph.co.uk
RIGHT TO DENY ARMENIAN GENOCIDE UPHELD BY EUROPEAN
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.
telegraph.co.uk
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
Dogu Perincek had the right to deny that Turkey conducted a
genocide of Armenians in 1915 during the First World War, court
rules
By Raziye Akkoc
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 (R) 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."
By Raziye Akkoc
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 (R) 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."
Zoryan Institute
PRESS RELEASE
October 15, 2015
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONFIRMS THE 1915
PRESS RELEASE
October 15, 2015
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 Perinçek v. Switzerland at a
public hearing today, October 15, 2015.
The lead counsel for the NGO Coalition (Turkish Human Rights Association,
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. Perinçek’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. Perin ç ek 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. Perinçek’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. Perinç ek 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. Perinç ek 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
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
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.
news.am
ARMENIA OFFICIAL: THAT WAS WHAT WE WANTED FROM ECHR
IN PERINCEK CASE
15.10.2015
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.
15.10.2015
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.
asbarez.com
The Armenian Weekly
European Court Issues Contentious Ruling On Perinçek Case
15.10.15
European Court Issues Contentious Ruling On Perinçek Case
15.10.15
STRASBOURG, France— The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday issued a contentious ruling in the case of Perinçek vs. Switzerland, which concerned the criminal conviction by Switzerland of Turkish politician Dogu Perinçek for publicly challenging the existence of the Armenian Genocide.
While the ruling upholds Perinçek’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. In January , the two were joined by Robertson’s associate Amal Clooney in presenting the appeal.
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 onward 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, Perinçek “had not expressed contempt or hatred for the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years.”
Robertson was upbeat about the ruling, saying it was “a good decision for Armenians.”
He highlighted three noteworthy points from the decision, the first being that Thursday ’s judgment reversed the lower court’s ruling, which expressed doubts about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Robertson explained that the ruling by the Grand Chamber, as it is known, affirmed that it had no right to make such a distinction.
The second element that emerged from Thursday ’s ruling was that Armenians were protected in their assertion of the Armenian Genocide, signaling that in the future individuals could be held accountable—by law—for denying the Genocide if their comments are viewed as inciting hatred or xenophobia.
The most significant turning point, however, according to Robertson, is that Thursday ’s ruling suggested that Article 301 of Turkey’s Criminal Code, which stipulated punishment for “insulting Turkishness” can now be deemed in direct contradiction to the ECHR ruling.
“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 Perinçek 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 Karampetian, President of the EAFJD.
“A sharply divided European Court for Human Rights failed to consistently apply fundamental principles of law and justice in the Perinçek case, resulting in a mixed decision. The court’s conflicted and contradictory judgment, while offering deeply troubling protection for hate speech, does create meaningful new opportunities for progress in ending Turkey’s denials and ultimately reaching a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” said Kate Nahapetian, the Governmental Affairs Director of the Armenian National Committee of America,
Seven Jurists issue dissent to ECHR decision
The 134-page ruling includes three dissenting opinions, including a dissent submitted by 7 judges from the panel, most notably the President of the European Court of Human Rights Dean Spielmann.
“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-defense, 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 Perinçek 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.
Robertson, Clooney Issue Statement on ECHR Ruling
LONDON—After the ruling Thursday by the European Court of Human Rights on the Perinçek vs. Switzerland case, in which the court maintained the legality of laws criminalizing genocide denial, yet upheld the defendant’s right to freedom of speech, the lead counsels representing Armenia, Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney issued the following statement:
We are pleased that the European Court of Human Rights today endorsed our argument on behalf of the Government of Armenia, which intervened in the case between Dogu Perinçek and Switzerland. The decision is a victory for Armenia.
Today the European Court ruled that the applicant’s freedom of speech should not have been restrained because it was not likely to incite violence or racial hatred. Thus Perinçek should not have been prosecuted by the Swiss authority because his rant, in the Turkish language, would have had no impact at all on social harmony and race relations in Switzerland.
Armenia intervened in the case for one reason: the lower court had cast doubt on the fact that a genocide against the Armenian people occurred in 1915. As counsel we sought to correct this grave error, and the Grand Chamber has done so. Today ’s judgment did not dispute the fact of the Armenian genocide: ten judges said the question should not have been addressed at all whilst seven stated that “the Armenian genocide is a clearly established historic fact”.
The judgment also upholds the Armenians’ right under European law to have their dignity respected and protected, including by recognition of a communal identity forged through suffering from the annihilation of over half their race by the Ottoman Turks (see para 227).
The court’s decision upholding the importance of freedom of expression has important consequences for Turkey, which has the worst record of any state before the European Court on free speech. Turkey can no longer justify prosecuting those like Hrant Dink who are accused of “insulting Turkishness” contrary to article 301 of the Penal Code by writing about the reality of the Armenian genocide. These prosecutions are plainly contrary to the free speech guarantee under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted in the Perinçek case. We call on Turkey to abolish article 301 and cease malicious prosecutions pursued on its terms.
Perinçek is a provocateur who should not have been made the martyr that he was so keen to become. We note that the Court rejected his demand for 120,000 euro compensation, and awarded him nothing – not even his own legal fees.
This case has already been misrepresented in the British press. For example The Telegraph characterizes the judgment in its headline as being “… a blow to Amal Clooney…”. Ms Clooney and Mr Robertson appeared for Armenia as a third party, which was concerned to ensure that the Armenian genocide was not put in doubt by Europe’s human rights court. They took no position on Perinçek’s guilt or innocence. The only ‘blow’ was to the defendant state – i.e. Switzerland, the prosecuting state which they did not represent, and to Turkey which cannot now quote the European Court when it seeks to cast doubt on the Armenian genocide.
October 15, 2015 i
Robertson and Clooney Call Switzerland v. Perincek Judgment a Victory for Armenia
STRASBOURG, France (A.W.)—The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) today publicized its deliberation on the Perincek v. Switzerland case, upholding Dogu Perincek’s right to free speech, which the court found was violated by a Swiss court in 2007. The ECHR ruling, which was delivered on narrow grounds, abstained from passing judgments or opinions on a number of issues, from whether Perincek’s statements amounted to genocide denial, to whether the Armenian Genocide could be characterized as genocide. Attorneys Geoffrey Ronald Robertson and Amal Alamuddin Clooney, who represented Armenia as a third party in the case, called the verdict “a victory for Armenia” because the Grand Chamber moved away from the judgment of the lower court, which had “cast doubt” on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.
Konstantian and Robertson at the ruling
In 2007, a Swiss court had fined Perincek, a Turkish ultra-nationalist activist and chairman of Turkey’s Workers’ Party, for his public statements calling the Armenian Genocide an “international lie.” In their appeal to the ECHR, Perincek’s defense argued the Swiss court had violated Perincek’s right to freedom of expression; the court ruled in his favor in 2013. On March 7, 2014, Switzerland filed an appeal, which led to a Grand Chamber hearing in January and today’s judgment.
The court summarized its judgment in the following statement: “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 criminalize 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 criminal conviction.”
The ECHR noted that it had to “strike a balance between two Convention rights—the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life.”
In a statement issued following the judgment, Robertson and Clooney stressed that “Perincek is a provocateur who should not have been made the martyr that he was so keen to become.” They also noted that the court rejected Perincek’s demand for compensation in the sum of 120,000 euros. “[They] awarded him nothing—not even his own legal fees,” read the statement.
ECHR judges during the ruling
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian also commented on the ruling. “A sharply divided European Court for Human Rights failed to consistently apply fundamental principles of law and justice in the Perincek case, resulting in a mixed decision. The court’s conflicted and contradictory judgment, while offering deeply troubling protection for hate speech, does create meaningful new opportunities for progress in ending Turkey ‘s denials and ultimately reaching a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” she said.
During the highly publicized Grand Chamber hearing in January, Armenia’s legal team was comprised of Armenia’s Prosecutor General Gevorg Kostanyan, and attorneys Robertson and Clooney. Perincek was represented by Mehmet Cengiz, Christian Laurent Pech, and Stefan Talmon representing the Turkish government.
Third-party comments were submitted by the Turkish, Armenian, and French governments, as well as the Switzerland-Armenia Association; the Federation of the Turkish Associations of French-Speaking Switzerland, the Coordinating Council of the Armenian Organizations in France (CCAF), the Turkish Human Rights Association, the Truth Justice Memory Centre and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), the Centre for International Protection, and a group of Belgian and French academics.
ECHR Abstains from Determining the Nature of the Crime
On one important point, the court abstained from providing an opinion. The court held 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.”
A statement posted on the official website of Armenia’s Prosecutor General held that the ECHR judgment was “very good” for Armenia. According to that statement, the verdict overrules comments offered by the judges in the lower court who had questioned the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.
Similarly, attorneys Robertson and Clooney, in their statement issued following the verdict, noted: “Armenia intervened in the case for one reason: the lower court had cast doubt on the fact that a genocide against the Armenian people occurred in 1915. As counsel we sought to correct this grave error, and the Grand Chamber has done so. Today’s judgment did not dispute the fact of the Armenian genocide: Ten judges said the question should not have been addressed at all whilst seven stated that ‘the Armenian genocide is a clearly established historic fact.’”
During the Jan. 28 Grand Chamber hearing, Perincek’s lawyer Mehmet Cengiz said that the core of the issue was the legal definition of “the tragic events that took place a hundred years ago in the Ottoman Empire.”
During that hearing, Perincek said that his legal team submitted about “90 kilos” of documents to the court as evidence to prove why the Armenian Genocide should not be labeled as such. Two days before the hearing, he had declared that the Strasbourg court would “finalize the lie of Armenian Genocide.”
In her statements during the Grand Chamber hearing, Clooney said that “the most important error by the court below is that it cast doubt on the reality of the Armenian Genocide that the people suffered a hundred years ago.” She argued that this finding on the genocide was not necessary in the case, that it was reached without a proper forensics process, and, most importantly, that it was wrong. “This court is not the forum and Mr. Perincek is not the case in which to determine state responsibility for the crime of genocide. But if this chamber were minded to make such a judicial determination, then Armenia must have its day in court. We would, in that case, welcome the opportunity to submit evidence, which we consider to be overwhelming, that the massacres that killed over a million Armenians would today be labelled as genocide,” said Clooney.
The court also avoided defining the nature of Perincek’s statement. The court’s statement read: “In examining the nature of Mr. Perincek’s statements, the Court did not seek to establish whether they could properly be characterized as genocide denial or justification for the purposes of the Swiss Criminal Code. That question was for the Swiss courts to determine.”
Court’s Opinion on State’s Right to Protect Rights of Citizens
The Grand Chamber also noted that “the Court found that the [Swiss court’s] interference could be regarded as having been intended ‘for the protection of the…rights of others’ within the meaning of Article 10.2. It noted that many of the descendants of the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years, especially in the Armenian diaspora, constructed their identity around the perception that their community had been the victim of genocide. The Court thus accepted that the interference with Mr. Perincek’s rights had been intended to protect that identity and thus the dignity of present-day Armenians.”
Citing a part of the aforementioned statement, Armenia’s Prosecutor General’s Office noted: “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.”
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.
Robertson and Clooney echoed this point in their statement. “The judgment upholds the Armenians’ right under European law to have their dignity respected and protected, including by recognition of a communal identity forged through suffering from the annihilation of over half their race by the Ottoman Turks,” they noted.
Robertson and Clooney Call Switzerland v. Perincek Judgment a Victory for Armenia
STRASBOURG, France (A.W.)—The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) today publicized its deliberation on the Perincek v. Switzerland case, upholding Dogu Perincek’s right to free speech, which the court found was violated by a Swiss court in 2007. The ECHR ruling, which was delivered on narrow grounds, abstained from passing judgments or opinions on a number of issues, from whether Perincek’s statements amounted to genocide denial, to whether the Armenian Genocide could be characterized as genocide. Attorneys Geoffrey Ronald Robertson and Amal Alamuddin Clooney, who represented Armenia as a third party in the case, called the verdict “a victory for Armenia” because the Grand Chamber moved away from the judgment of the lower court, which had “cast doubt” on the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.
Konstantian and Robertson at the ruling
In 2007, a Swiss court had fined Perincek, a Turkish ultra-nationalist activist and chairman of Turkey’s Workers’ Party, for his public statements calling the Armenian Genocide an “international lie.” In their appeal to the ECHR, Perincek’s defense argued the Swiss court had violated Perincek’s right to freedom of expression; the court ruled in his favor in 2013. On March 7, 2014, Switzerland filed an appeal, which led to a Grand Chamber hearing in January and today’s judgment.
The court summarized its judgment in the following statement: “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 criminalize 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 criminal conviction.”
The ECHR noted that it had to “strike a balance between two Convention rights—the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life.”
In a statement issued following the judgment, Robertson and Clooney stressed that “Perincek is a provocateur who should not have been made the martyr that he was so keen to become.” They also noted that the court rejected Perincek’s demand for compensation in the sum of 120,000 euros. “[They] awarded him nothing—not even his own legal fees,” read the statement.
ECHR judges during the ruling
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Government Affairs Director Kate Nahapetian also commented on the ruling. “A sharply divided European Court for Human Rights failed to consistently apply fundamental principles of law and justice in the Perincek case, resulting in a mixed decision. The court’s conflicted and contradictory judgment, while offering deeply troubling protection for hate speech, does create meaningful new opportunities for progress in ending Turkey ‘s denials and ultimately reaching a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,” she said.
During the highly publicized Grand Chamber hearing in January, Armenia’s legal team was comprised of Armenia’s Prosecutor General Gevorg Kostanyan, and attorneys Robertson and Clooney. Perincek was represented by Mehmet Cengiz, Christian Laurent Pech, and Stefan Talmon representing the Turkish government.
Third-party comments were submitted by the Turkish, Armenian, and French governments, as well as the Switzerland-Armenia Association; the Federation of the Turkish Associations of French-Speaking Switzerland, the Coordinating Council of the Armenian Organizations in France (CCAF), the Turkish Human Rights Association, the Truth Justice Memory Centre and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), the Centre for International Protection, and a group of Belgian and French academics.
ECHR Abstains from Determining the Nature of the Crime
On one important point, the court abstained from providing an opinion. The court held 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.”
A statement posted on the official website of Armenia’s Prosecutor General held that the ECHR judgment was “very good” for Armenia. According to that statement, the verdict overrules comments offered by the judges in the lower court who had questioned the veracity of the Armenian Genocide.
Similarly, attorneys Robertson and Clooney, in their statement issued following the verdict, noted: “Armenia intervened in the case for one reason: the lower court had cast doubt on the fact that a genocide against the Armenian people occurred in 1915. As counsel we sought to correct this grave error, and the Grand Chamber has done so. Today’s judgment did not dispute the fact of the Armenian genocide: Ten judges said the question should not have been addressed at all whilst seven stated that ‘the Armenian genocide is a clearly established historic fact.’”
During the Jan. 28 Grand Chamber hearing, Perincek’s lawyer Mehmet Cengiz said that the core of the issue was the legal definition of “the tragic events that took place a hundred years ago in the Ottoman Empire.”
During that hearing, Perincek said that his legal team submitted about “90 kilos” of documents to the court as evidence to prove why the Armenian Genocide should not be labeled as such. Two days before the hearing, he had declared that the Strasbourg court would “finalize the lie of Armenian Genocide.”
In her statements during the Grand Chamber hearing, Clooney said that “the most important error by the court below is that it cast doubt on the reality of the Armenian Genocide that the people suffered a hundred years ago.” She argued that this finding on the genocide was not necessary in the case, that it was reached without a proper forensics process, and, most importantly, that it was wrong. “This court is not the forum and Mr. Perincek is not the case in which to determine state responsibility for the crime of genocide. But if this chamber were minded to make such a judicial determination, then Armenia must have its day in court. We would, in that case, welcome the opportunity to submit evidence, which we consider to be overwhelming, that the massacres that killed over a million Armenians would today be labelled as genocide,” said Clooney.
The court also avoided defining the nature of Perincek’s statement. The court’s statement read: “In examining the nature of Mr. Perincek’s statements, the Court did not seek to establish whether they could properly be characterized as genocide denial or justification for the purposes of the Swiss Criminal Code. That question was for the Swiss courts to determine.”
Court’s Opinion on State’s Right to Protect Rights of Citizens
The Grand Chamber also noted that “the Court found that the [Swiss court’s] interference could be regarded as having been intended ‘for the protection of the…rights of others’ within the meaning of Article 10.2. It noted that many of the descendants of the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years, especially in the Armenian diaspora, constructed their identity around the perception that their community had been the victim of genocide. The Court thus accepted that the interference with Mr. Perincek’s rights had been intended to protect that identity and thus the dignity of present-day Armenians.”
Citing a part of the aforementioned statement, Armenia’s Prosecutor General’s Office noted: “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.”
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.
Robertson and Clooney echoed this point in their statement. “The judgment upholds the Armenians’ right under European law to have their dignity respected and protected, including by recognition of a communal identity forged through suffering from the annihilation of over half their race by the Ottoman Turks,” they noted.
No comments:
Post a Comment