DAVIS REPORT RETAINS ALL UNACCEPTABLE ARTICLES
Azg/arm
19 Nov 04
Armenian Deputies to PACE Grieving
On November 17 PACE new reporter on Nagorno Karabakh David Atkinson
represented his report at the session of PACE Commission on Political
Issues in Paris. The session was chaired by deputy from Russia
Mikhail Margelov who represented the issue. The session discussed the
changes suggested by the deputies.
Armenian deputy at PACE Tigran Torosian suggested 5 possible changes
only two of which were accepted. A formulation in the 7th article
saying that the International Court of Justice should examine whether
Armenia has violated Azerbaijan’s territorial wholeness was removed.
Terry Davis’ preliminary report’s 7th article read: “In case
negotiations within the Minsk group framework turn futile, thenâ=80¦
Armenia and Azerbaijan may turn to the International Court of Justice
as there is a legalistic argument whether Armenia violated
Azerbaijan’s territorial wholeness for defending the right of
self-identification of Karabakh people or not”.
It’s puzzling why the Armenian side considered this very article a
potentially dangerous one. During last few years Armenia has been
constantly repeating that Karabakh has never been within the
boundaries of independent Azerbaijan and that the League of Nations
did not recognize the Azeri state of 1918-20 because the latter tried
to join the League with Karabakh behind. Yerevan agreed on finding a
legal solution for the issue.
The second change of the Armenian side that was accepted has to do
with the 11th article which deals with spreading hatred by means of
mass media. They suggested to remove the equals sign between Armenian
and Azeri mass media as regards spreading hatred. Now this article
reads: “The Assembly condemns any call for violence by means of
Armenian and Azeri media”.
Three more suggestions of the Armenian side were turned down. “It was
obvious that some representatives’ choice to vote for Azeris was
dictated from above and as result our 3 changes were rejected”,
Torosian said. An “explanation” issued right after the session by the
Department of Contacts with Public ofthe National Assembly of Armenia
does not name the states voted for Azerbaijan.
There were several unacceptable formulations in Davis’ report (we do
not use the term “Atkinson’s report” as Mr. Atkinson has only edited
Davis’ report – T.H.) that still retain. In particular terms like
“ethnic exile” and “appearance of homogeneous ethnic territories”. But
the most unacceptable one was the last sentence in the first article
that the Armenian side could not force to remove. It reads: “A
considerable part of Azerbaijan’s territory isstill occupied by
Armenian armed forces and the separatist forces are still in control
over Nagorno Karabakh”.
The second article repeats that occupation of a CE state’s territory
by another CE state is a violation of CE regulations. In fact, Armenia
is charged with occupation of Azeri lands. Probably the UN General
Assembly will accept a formula about “the present state Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories”.
Neither Atkinson’s report nor UN’s formula have juridical power,
therefore are not forcible but are important from political and
propaganda aspects.
By Tatoul Hakobian