On February 5,ECHR heard the case of “Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan,” dealing with Minas Sargsyan`s complaint against the Republic of Azerbaijan, claiming that he was forced to flee his Gulistan home in the Shahumyan region, after his property was destroyed by Azeri armed forces in June 1992.

Applicant Minas Sargsyan passed away in 2009, but his two children continued the complaint.

Representatives of Azerbaijan in the Court was Chingiz Askerov, Plenipotentiary Representative of Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights, lawyers, Malcolm N. Show and Gabriel Lansky, legal assistances Otary Gvaladze, Hannes Tretter and Tatyana Urdanetta.

“ I’m sure, the judges of the European Court saw that this case differs from others. The process is going on in the middle of the conflict, directly on the contact line in the military zone with all its dangers. All were assured that in such a situation the rights enshrined in the European Convention and the mechanism ensuring them, cannot work.

The questions given by the judges show that they understand specificity of geographical condition of Gulistan village. I think it will have a special influence and result.

What concerns the results, first of all, I must say that Azerbaijan is not responsible for what is happening in Gulistan village, as it does not exercise control over the very village. It is obvious, in this case no convention must be applied against Azerbaijan. No one can predict what the judges will decide. However, the questions by the judges make us to be optimist and believe in positive results.

As for me, it is very important by the European Court to understand that the situation in Azerbaijan differs, in compare with Armenia’s.

I addition, I think, we had an opportunity to explain the Madrid Principles which envisions the return of the Azerbaijani refugees and IDPs to their own places, as well as to explain the principles of the UN General Assembly. Return of the Azerbaijani population to Nagorno Karabakh is a part of the policy pursued in the country and insurance of rights fixed in the convention are paid great attention. From this point of view, I hope the results will be positive.

I think, the “Chiragov and others vs. Armenia” is a fundamental lawsuit on the main questions raised on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the decision on the ”Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan” suit is possible to be given in two order: 1) Azerbaijan is not responsible for this problem as it has no control over the situation; 2) Applicant’s (Sargsyan), and his family’s arguments are not consistent” -said Gabriel Lansky.

Chingiz Askerov, Plenipotentiary Representative of Azerbaijan to the European Court of Human Rights said:

- I think our position was stronger. We had an opportunity to present all consistent evidences in court.

Our main argument was that, because of the existence of the Armenian armed forces in the territory, Azerbaijan cannot exercise control over the village of Gulistan and therefor the Armenian citizen who claims his house back must raise an allegation against Armenia but not Azerbaijan. The Republic of Azerbaijan is not responsible for this problem.

Armenian side and the applicant put in baseless claims against Azerbaijan. They claimed that as if the applicant was forced to flee his Gulistan home in the Shahumyan region, after his property was destroyed by Azeri armed forces in June 1992. But the independent study presented to the European Court shows that there are not any safe house in the very village, and that the claim is baseless.

We tried to explain it to judges. Besides, the positions of the Military Forces of Azerbaijan located in the outside of the village but not inside. Whereas, Armenian side is located in close proximity and opposite side of the village and can see and control the village very well. They intensively open fire from their positions.

That is why we couldn’t allow anyone to live in the village under fire. Because living in that village is very dangerous for people. I hope, the European Court will take our position into consideration.

We just implement our positive responsibilities and do our best to help refugees and IDPs to return their home. I hope the court will consider it too.

The Sargsyan case was first filed with ECHR on August 11, 2006. The Court held hearings on both the Armenian and Azerbaijani complaints on the same day: it heard the “Chiragov and Others vs. Armenia” case in the morning of September 15, 2010, and later that afternoon, the “Sargsyan vs. Azerbaijan” case.
In a preliminary decision on December 14, 2011, ECHR found Sargsyan’s complaint to be partly admissible.

Two weeks earlier, ECHR heard the rival case of “Chiragov and Others vs. Armenia,” in which six İDPs from Lachin region of Azerbaijan had filed a complaint against the Republic of Armenia. They claimed to be unable to return to their homes and properties in the Lachin district since May 17, 1992, having been forced to flee because of the Karabagh (Artsakh) war.

The Azeri complaint against Armenia was first filed with ECHR on April 6, 2005. In a preliminary decision on December 14, 2011, ECHR agreed to take up the case, finding that the ongoing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan did not preclude the Court from dealing with this contentious situation. ECHR held a subsequent hearing on January 22, 2014, to consider the following questions:

1) does Armenia exercise effective control over the territory of Artsakh?

2) do the six Azeri citizens possess sufficient documentation proving their identity and ownership of the claimed properties?

3) should the Azeri applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies (ECHR requirement) by applying first to Artsakh courts prior to filing a complaint with ECHR, considering the further complication that Artsakh is not a recognized state?

AzVision.az

More about: