“I will refrain from interpreting the ECHR well-known judgment on Armenia against Chiragov and others. It is up to the experts”, so responded the Coordinator of “Founding Parliament”, Jirair Sefilyan, in response to the question of Aravot.am. The question referred to the ECHR verdict on “Chiragov v Armenia” case. Note that the European Court of Human Rights has recognized the Republic of Armenia a competent side, which is obliged to provide a compensation to Chiragov suffered due to the displacement.
The Chiragovs demand the court a compensation of 7.9 million euros from Armenia for their lost possessions. The Grand Chamber of the ECHR has defined for the Chiragovs that Armenia has political, economic and military significant impact over Nagorno-Karabakh, and as a result, and “effective control is carried out” over Nagorno-Karabakh, and consequently, Armenia bears the responsible for the violations occurring in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The ECHR judgment specifically states that there are numerous testimonies, as well as public statements by Armenia’s government members that come to prove that Armenia, with its military presence, has a significant involvement role in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The ECHR considered this evidence reliable. “While making a decision, the court was ruled by such arguments, which, in my opinion, should not be put as a base of the judgment, for example, the statements made by separate individuals. In such a case, the words of given person should receive a power of proof and the latter should be present as a witness. However, the court decided that it suffices, for example, to use Zhirayr Sefilyan’s words on any occasion or Vazgen Manukyan’s ideas expressed in one of the interviews, which sometimes are away from the context. This, I think, was one of the weaknesses of the court judgment, for which I have submitted a separate opinion,” so opined the former representative of Armenia to ECHR, Alvina Gyulumyan, to “MediaMax” on this matter.
Aravot.am has sent a written question to Zhirayr Sefilyan asking which of his interviews or an expressed idea they are talking about. Mr. Sefilyan did not specify in his written statement specifically which of his statement or the interview is the matter about, but he noted, “At the same time, I consider appropriate to mention that this verdict, being legal, was made in the political context. Such decision would not be made if Armenia were a full sovereign state, instead of leading the issue of Artsakh through self-determination, it could make the issue reach its logical end by unification with Armenia, would not to be isolated from the world and would not connect its future with the stillborn Eurasian Economic Union. This verdict and its possible adverse implications for our country are the bitter fruits that we are reaping because of the anti-national and subservient foreign policy led by the leadership of Armenia.
In fact, we have already reached a situation that the fulfillment of our rights to the Homeland, even talking about it, can be used against our state. I am confident that in the future, after removal of the current regime and having a national government, it will be possible to overcome other problems available in all spheres of our country’s foreign and domestic problems, as well as the problems related to this decision.”
Nelly GRIGORYAN
