Armenia celebrates the 10th anniversary of membership in the CoE with unpleasant surprises in that institution. Last Friday, during the winter sitting, the PACE bureau decided to re-start the work of the sub-commission on the issue of Karabakh. This sub-commission was established in 2005 based on the Resolution 1416, and it was on the 5th anniversary of Armenia’s membership with this organization. The Resolution 1416 demands from the Armenian government to take the armed forces out of the “occupied” lands. What is more surprising, during the discussions on launching this sub-commission again all the PACE bureau besides the Armenian delegations voted for, including the ones that represent the OSCE Minsk Group. In addition, according to the PACE’s Resolution 1787 Armenia is among the countries that fail to implement the decisions of the European court of Human Rights. The reason why Armenia is among those countries is the failure to implement the demand of the European court in 2008 connected with the A1+ TV company. The EU believes the decision to shut down this TV company is a violation of the 10th article of the Human Rights Convention and made a decision calling on the Armenian authorities to restore that right. The Armenian delegation has returned from the PACE and they will hold a press-conference. Even though the head of the delegation Davit Harutyunyan said during our phone conversation that he will answer all questions at the press-conference but he answered several questions anyway.
– Mr. Harutyunyan, can we say that Armenia failed in this sitting of the PACE because of the decisions to launch the sub-commission on Karabakh according to the Resolution 1787? According to it, Armenia was classified among the countries that fail to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
– The Resolution 1787 is about many countries but not Armenia only. Armenia is not in the worse situation from this prospective. There are many other countries that are in worse situation. As for the decision to launch a sub-commission on Karabakh issue, I think this was a non-professional approach and of course mainly it was due to the factor of the Turkish president of the PACE as he is not impartial. Of course the issue concerning the ad hoc was discussed in the Resolution 1416 adopted in 2005. But it does not mean that this commission should be established today with this format. This is just the non-professional approach on part of the PACE, as well as it is a result of the pressure on part of the Turkish president of the PACE who is not impartial.
– People say that it is the fault of the Armenian delegation, specifically your fault because you have not tried to impede the Turkish delegate Mevlut Cavushoglu in the PACE president’s position.
– I am saying it one more time; there is a tradition there that the president is not elected by vote. The PACE president is nominated by a political team as the teams decide who to nominate after voting for the potential candidates. As a result this person is elected, but it is not a real election because usually there is no second candidate nominated by the same political team. It is inner agreement between them, a political tradition, thus I don’t think it was possible to prevent that process. This is an established tradition that started a dozen years ago and still continues.
– What is the reason why besides the Armenian delegation all the other delegates voted for that ad hoc sub-commission? Maybe the Armenian delegation did not work well and failed to prevent it.
– It means that there was a great pressure by the president and the problem is that they had agreed it with the president in the presidium committee. Their formal justification is the following: the PACE has made such decision on establishing such commission before.
– Have they made clear what the participation or non-participation principles will be for that ad hoc? Maybe it will be better to take part in the work of that ad hoc and present Armenia’s positions and not to leave the stage for Azerbaijan only.
– I believe the existence of that sub-commission may have a negative impact on the peaceful negotiation process. From this prospective we do not want to take part in non-constructive formats.
– Anyway the commission may really jeopardize the situation if the Armenian party fails to submit any arguments or create positive moods concerning the rights of the people of Karabakh.
– I understand what you mean. In fact I do not want to use the word “boycott”, but I am reaffirming that we do not want to take part in non-constructive works.