At the plenary session of the PACE, during the discussion on “Ensuring free and safe access through the Lachin Corridor” under the urgent procedure, no time was allotted for speeches.
The Assembly proceeded to discuss recommendations related to the report, and 62 recommendations were presented.
Most of them were presented by Azerbaijan. Paul Gavan, the author of the report on “Ensuring free and safe access through the Lachine Corridor,” said that if the majority of these recommendations were accepted, the logic and content of the report would be completely changed, so the PACE Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons voted against them, so there is no need for them separately. – be discussed separately in the Assembly.
However, Samad Seyidov insisted that they be discussed and voted on. The members of the Azerbaijani delegation wanted the phrase ethnic Armenians to be removed from the report and Stepanakert to be removed, but all these recommendations were not accepted. Another suggestion was to remove the words “lack of free and safe movement” from the report.
Read also
This proposal was also not accepted. PACE delegate Stefan Shennakh said sarcastically: “Why should this phrase be removed? If that free movement had been ensured, this discussion would not have happened, and the need for the report would not have existed”. Azerbaijanis failed to replace the name Nagorno- Karabakh with the phrase Karabakh region.
There were several proposals with this content, but all of them were rejected. In the end, Ruben Rubinyan, head of the Armenian delegation to the PACE, got nervous and announced: “Azerbaijan’s goal is to prolong the process so that the delegates get tired and leave the hall so that the report is not accepted.”
The PACE Commission on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons were against all these recommendations; even the Chairman of the commission, Oleksiy Goncharenko sarcastically declared when talking about each recommendation that it would be nothing new if he said that the commission was against these recommendations.
Members of the Azerbaijani delegation wanted to add to the report that the Assembly welcomes the appointment of a special representative by Azerbaijan to engage in dialogue with Armenians living in its territory and encourages the continuation of that dialogue in order to ensure their rights and security.
However, this proposal was not accepted either. They also wanted the report to include the following: “The Assembly notes that Azerbaijan has set up a border checkpoint on the interstate border with Armenia, fully complying with international practice, and it provides all the necessary conditions for local Armenian residents to move in both directions.”
Despite all the Azerbaijani obstacles, the Resolution was adopted. Of the 67 delegates who participated in the voting, 48 voted in favor, 16 against, and three abstained.
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
