Author: Felekian Ara

ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT PROPOSES REVISING SOME ISSUES OF PUNITIVE POLICY

YEREVAN, MAY 12, NOYAN TAPAN. The amendments to be made in the RA
Criminal Court Procedure Code, the RA Criminal Code, the RA Criminal
Executive Code and the RA Law on Criminal Executive Service are aimed
at making specifications in the punitive policy. Head of the Court and
Legal Reforms Department of the RA Ministry of Justice Nikolai
Arustamian told NT correspondent about it. It is envisaged to make the
main specifications in such punitive measures as fine, as well as
public and corrective labor. Particularly, according to N.
Arustamian, it is intended to replace 2 years’ imprisonment with
public labor at the request of a convicted person. The Criminal
Executive Code currently in force envisages such a possibility in case
of availability of a court act on up to 1 year imprisonment. It is
proposed abolishing corrective labor as a punitive measure, because
studies show that this measure is gradually losing its effect and is
not conducive to solution of the three major problems related to the
use of punishment: restoration of social justice, prevention and
correction of the convicted person. It is also envisaged to abolish
fine as an additional punitive measure: statistical studies indicate
that fine is seldom imposed as an additional punishment, while in case
of its use, some problems arise. In many cases the main punishment is
applied, while the additional one – fine is not. It was noted that
pursuant to the RA Law on the National Assembly By-Laws, the Armenian
government made a decision on May 11 to consider as urgent the package
of the following draft laws: on making amendments to the RA Criminal
Code, on making an addition and amendments to the RA Criminal
Executive Code, on making additions to the RA Criminal Court Procedure
Code, and on making amendments and additions to the RA Law on Criminal
Executive Service.

Zaman, Turkey
May 12 2006

‘French Parliament Seized by Armenian Lobbyists’
By Ali Ihsan Aydin, Paris
Published: Friday, May 12, 2006
zaman.com

A well-known French academic, Professor Pierre Nora, has strong
criticism for the bill advocating the imprisonment of those who deny
the Armenian Holocaust.

The respected historian told Zaman his opinions on the bill to be
discussed in the French National Parliament, and said, “The French
parliament is being held captive by Armenian pressure groups.” Nora
pointed out that the approval of the bill will end the discussions on
the Armenian genocide and added, “It is much easier to discuss the
Armenian problem in Istanbul than it is in Paris.”

Professor Nora, one of the French historians that composed a protest
letter against the proposed Armenian genocide law, said, “The bill is
a Socialist Party bid to win Armenian sympathy before the elections.”

Nora also criticized the genocide law passed in 2001 and recalled the
appearance of famous historian Bernard Lewis in court. He said these
kinds of scandalous events should not be repeated.

The French historian said “I’m afraid this bill will pass” as he
warned the Armenian problem will become impossible to discuss if it
becomes a law. Nora asserted this attempt will open the door for
other societies’ to demand similar laws, and “the past will be
imprisoned in law” as historians will be prevented from studying the
most controversial historical events.

Nora noted they founded the “Association of Freedom for History” with
a group of French academics after the French Parliament began to
discuss laws on historical issues. He expressed that they want bills
which determine what historians should teach and what should be
studied to be withdrawn. The French historian maintains this kind of
law is an attempt to form an official version of history and said:
“France has become accustomed to making such laws. But a law
restricting the freedom of historians does not suit a free country.
They can only happen in the totalitarian countries where politicians
talk about the official reality.”

Bill, a political investment

“It is easier to discuss the Armenian question in Turkey than it is
in Paris” said Nora, highlighting the conferences held for the
Armenian issue in Turkey and the Turkish government’s initiative to
create a commission of historians, which he considers significant
improvements. “The French Parliament is being taken hostage by
Armenian oppression groups,” said Nora, claiming that Armenian groups
in France are extremely powerful and well-organized, and consequently
influence politics. Nora expressed his disapproval of the `Genocide
Law’ issued in 2001, and qualified the judicial process of renowned
historian Bernard Lewis for such a case as a “scandal”.

Recalling the “guarantee” given to them by members of the parliament
whom they met with after the law on communicating the good sides of
colonialism, and the call from President Jacques Chirac to the
Parliament to remain detached from historical subjects, Nora assessed
PS’ law proposal, which disregards all of the above, as “shocking.”
While historian claims that this was a political investment of
Socialists, he said, “The only aim of the bill is to win the
sympathies of Armenians for the upcoming elections.”

Historians also strive to stop Armenian Bill

French politics are so hard to decipher that even the French
themselves have a hard time making sense of it, said a historian in
his reaction against French politicians, `The situation is so
nonsensical that one can hardly ever take a serious look at it.’

Ratification of the proposed `genocide’ bill will further complicate
the Turkish march towards membership with the European Union (EU),
said Nora, and pointed the finger at the incongruity of the PS’
effort, considering the party used to back the Turkish struggle for
an EU membership.

It is not up to French historians to speak out about the Armenian
genocide because they do not have an understanding of its specific
conditions, said Nora, as he declined to express his own ideas over
the Armenian issue, mentioning instead he is rather interested in the
French politician’s attitude towards the Armenian question.

Historians are also making an effort to stop the bill from being
enacted, said Nora, adding that the news media will hear further
statements from the historians in the near future.

As Nora stressed their ongoing efforts to keep in touch with
parliamentarians, he quoted the parliamentary group leader of the
Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) as saying in a telephone
conversation that there is no guarantee for anything yet, but there
will be every possible effort to stop it from happening. What is more
striking is the fact that 300 Armenians gathered just outside the UMP
headquarters during the parliamentary discussions over the Armenian
genocide bill.

Nora is a member of the Academic Francaise, and is widely known as a
French historian and intellectual.

TURKEY STANDS AGAINST ALLIES FOR SAYING TURKS COMMITTED GENOCIDE AGAINST ARMENIANS

PRAVDA, Russia
May 11 2006

The moves come in a week of tense diplomacy for the Turks, who briefly
recalled ambassadors to both France and Canada in protest against
recent statements in those countries on the killings of Armenians. The
ambassadors returned Thursday after four days in Ankara.

The diplomatic maneuvering shows how sensitive Turks are to the
issue. In recognizing the killings as genocide, other countries are
putting the Ottoman Turks in the same category as Nazi Germans, a
move intensely resisted in Turkey and not likely to make the Turks
any more popular in the European Union they hope to join.

Turkey vehemently denies that a genocide against Armenians took
place, and has made it government policy to fight such assertions with
diplomatic and economic sanctions if necessary. But it is unclear how
far Turks are willing to go to fight recognition abroad, especially
if it could mean harming the EU bid on which the government has staked
its reputation.

“Sometimes you talk, then you have to behave according to the way
you talk, and you get to a place you never wanted to go in the first
place,” said Ilter Turan, a political scientist at Istanbul Bilgi
University, of whether Turkey would carry through on its threats.

Combating recognition of genocide has long been a give and take battle
for Turkey, which is often outmuscled abroad by local constituencies
of Armenians, and then forced to rely on high-level diplomatic and
economic threats to keep them from achieving their aims.

The tactic Turkey is using now seems to be to ignore Canada – both
politically and economically – and engage France using a mix of
incentives and threats.

The Foreign Ministry released a statement saying Canada had learned
nothing from “the stagnation of relations between the two countries”
after the Canadian parliament voted to recognize the killings of
Armenians as genocide, which Canada’s prime minister recently said
he stood by.

On the other hand, Turkey sent a parliamentary delegation to Paris
this week, the Turkish chambers of commerce have sent letters to their
counterparts pleading for help and warning of a boycott, and Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday held a private meeting in
Ankara with representatives of large French firms with investments in
Turkey, where he warned of serious harm to relations if the genocide
measure was allowed to pass.

ARMENIAN HARDLINERS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT
Ilnur Cevik

New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006

Turkey has recalled its ambassadors to Canada and France because of
the negative attitude in those countries towards Turkey’s denials
that Armenians living in Turkey early last century were subjected to
genocide …

The French not only acknowledge that there was a genocide but they’ve
also moved to legislate a ban on disputing such an event. That means
if a Turk makes statements in France denying that such a genocide
took place they could be sent to prison.

The Canadian prime minister, on the other hand, has acknowledged that
the Ottoman Turks were involved in genocide against Armenians living
in the eastern regions of their territory.

Turks have spent decades categorically denying such a genocide took
place. They stress that the Armenians collaborated with the invading
Russians in the First World War and the Ottoman administration
was forced to evacuate them by force to other parts of the empire,
especially to Ottoman territory in the Middle East. However Turks do
acknowledge that in the process Armenians perished due to illness and
attacks from bandits. But Turks also say that many Turks who lived
in the eastern provinces were also murdered by Armenian gunmen.

Turkey has offered several times to set up a joint commission of
impartial historians to study the Ottoman files and get to the bottom
of the issue. However the Armenians have rejected this. Armenian
hardliners, especially those in the diaspora, have been insistent on
trying to hurt Turkey as much as possible.

First they organized and financed a terrorist group the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) that killed Turkish
diplomats and their families. The Western powers didn’t touch them
until ASALA made the mistake of unleashing its terrorist activities
at Orly Airport’s Turkish Airlines counter killing French citizens as
well as other tourists. Western intelligence officials then clamped
down on ASALA …

But Armenian hardliners continued their quest against Turkey and the
Turks. They helped Kurdish separatists to harm Turkey, forgetting that
most of the hordes who murdered Armenian families as they were being
evacuated from the east were, in fact, comprised of Kurdish bandits.

The Armenians also used politicians in many Western countries against
Turkey, sponsoring anti-Turkish resolutions in their parliaments.

There are strong and influential Armenian groups all over Europe and
north America. Politicians seeking their votes try to appease them.

The Swiss have already decided that denying the so-called Armenian
genocide is a crime. The parliaments of other countries have already
acknowledged the genocide claims.

So each time a foreign country does something to please the Armenians
Turkey hits back with the weapon of threatening to severe ties with
them. But this is exactly what the Armenian hardliners want. Every
time we create a chill in our ties with France, Canada or the U.S.

the Armenians rejoice. We should protest and try to educate the
public in these countries through lobbies and good public relations
but we should not take these meaningless actions, that only hurt our
international relations and push us into isolation.

NATIONS WITH POOR RIGHTS RECORDS WIN SEATS ON NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
May 10 2006

UNITED NATIONS – Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia won seats on the
new UN Human Rights Council despite their poor human rights records
but two rights abusers, Iran and Venezuela, were defeated.

Human rights groups said Tuesday they were generally pleased with
the 47 members elected to the council, which will replace the highly
politicized Human Rights Commission. It was discredited in recent
years because some countries with terrible rights records used their
membership to protect one another from condemnation.

“The spoiler governments, the governments that have a history of trying
to undermine the protection of human rights through their membership
on the old commission are now a significantly reduced minority when
it comes to the council,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of
Human Rights Watch. “That doesn’t guarantee that the council will be
a success but it is a step in the right direction.”

Even before the vote, Roth said, “the council was a vast improvement
over the discredited commission” because many countries that violate
human rights who had been commission members didn’t seek seats on
the council including Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya, Congo, Syria, Vietnam,
Nepal, Sri Lanka, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Yvonne Terlingen, UN representative for Amnesty International, said
it was “fairly pleased” that the council members “constitute a good
basis to make a fresh start with creating a strong and effective
human rights body.”

“Some countries have been elected with weak human rights records,
but they also are now committed to uphold the highest human rights
standards,” she said.

The United States opposed the establishment of the council, saying it
did not go far enough to prevent rights abusers from winning seats,
and the US decided against being a candidate.

But US Assistant Secretary of State Kristen Silverberg said “on the
whole, we think it is an improvement over the commission.”

“We are committed to engaging actively in the coming weeks with all
of the elected members … to make sure that this body is effective,”
she said. “We think that the real test of this council will be whether
it can take effective action in serious cases of human rights abuse
like Darfur, … Burma, North Korea and other places.”

Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican and critic of the UN,
criticized the vote, saying Cuba’s election showed the new council
suffers from the same weakness as the commission. The new council,
he said, “is the perfect example of the UN’s failure to reform.”

Anne Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School
who runs a web site on UN activities, said that at least 20 countries
that were elected “are ranked `partly free’ or `not free’ by Freedom
House,” a Washington-based organization that promotes democracy around
the world.

“That’s an astonishing number of countries that have made it on to
the UN’s primary human rights organ,” she said.

Under the rules for the council, any UN member was eligible to run
and 64 countries submitted their candidacies but Kenya dropped out at
the last minute. Members needed to be elected by an absolute majority
of the 191 UN states – 96 members.

To ensure global representation, Africa and Asia were given 13 seats
each; Latin America and the Caribbean eight seats; Western nations,
seven seats; and Eastern Europe, six seats.

Roth said Human Rights Watch would have preferred that Cuba, China,
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan had not won seats because of
their poor human rights records.

“The good news is that two of the least deserving governments were
not elected,” he said. “Both Venezuela and Iran failed to make the
cut. That is a step in the right direction.”

Richard Grenell, spokesman for the US Mission to the United Nations,
said Iran’s defeat “just shows their lack of standing in the
international community.”

Russia’s UN Ambassador Sergey Lavrov congratulated his countrymen
and women for being elected in the first round, expressing hope that
Moscow’s presence “will contribute to the balanced composition of this
council and to the balanced … discussion of the human rights agenda.”

Russia was a candidate in the most hotly contested regional group –
Eastern Europe – which fielded 13 candidates for six seats. It was
the only group where a second round of voting was needed.

The other winners were Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania
and Ukraine. The East European losers were Albania, Armenia, Georgia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.

With Kenya dropping out, Africa fielded 13 candidates for the 13
seats and all won: Algeria, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Mali,
Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zambia.

The 13 Asians elected to the council were Bangladesh, Bahrain, China,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines,
South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. Those defeated were Iran,
Iraq, Kyrgystan, Lebanon and Thailand.

In Latin American and the Caribbean, the 8 seats went to Argentina,
Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Nicaragua
and Venezuela were defeated.

The 7 countries elected from the Western bloc were Britain, Canada,
Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. Greece and
Portugal lost their bid for seats.

TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE THE LAND?

Lragir.am
10 May 06

On May 9, 2006 14 years after the liberation of Shushi we still
tend to wonder if we won or we did not. Nonetheless, the Armenian
establishment does not seem to be certain on where to go, what to
do and how. The evidence to this is the controversial statements
of public officials. “As a native of Mush, I know that we must keep
Karabakh to have Mush. A native of Javakheti knows that in order to
have Armenians living in Javakheti we must first of all keep Karabakh,
not only Karabakh but also Armenia,” said Prime Minister of Armenia
Andranik Margarian May 8 at a ceremony in Stepanakert. “The war imposed
on us showed that it is impossible to solve the problem by means of
war. Yes, we defended our land, we won the war, but we cannot assert
that our peoples, the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis, are happy. This
implies that there must be a political settlement of the issue. The
goal of every one of us must be the prevention of the war. However,
we need to be ready for a war.

Our readiness will prevent resumption of the war,” said NKR President
Arkady Ghukassian. “Can they impose a bitter peace on us?” In answer
to this question, Arkady Ghukassian said, “I do not think they can
impose anything on us. We choose what we want.

And we are not going to choose a bitter peace.” By saying “bitter
peace” in Karabakh they understand recognition of sovereignty of
NKR within the borders of the former autonomous region of Nagorno
Karabakh, return of territories and refugees. On May 9 Defense
Minister of Armenia Serge Sargissian shared his ideas with news
reporters in Karabakh. He reminded that Shushi is a manifestation
of the morale of the Armenian people. He called for bolstering up
this morale. “I disagree that victory is half the job. A victory is a
victory. If one wins a 50 percent victory, it means they did not won
at all. I think Karabakh won a victory,” said Serge Sargissian. In
answer to Lragir.am if he agreed with Goran Lennmarker that peace is
unlikely without the return of territories, Serge Sargissian said,
“The return of territories is a very capacious phrase. What territories
are meant? Stepanakert?”

“No, the territories outside the former autonomous region of Nagorno
Karabakh.” “I believe, especially today, that peace or resolution
should be based on compromise. But compromise suggests reciprocity,”
said the defense minister of Armenia. He mentioned that as 18 years
ago he anticipated Azerbaijan’s recognition of the right of the
people of Karabakh to be independent. The deputy minister of defense
of Armenia Manvel Grogorian announced May 8, “I exclude the return of
the areas. I am ready to prevent the return of the regions whenever
such attempts are made.”

FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN APPOINTED CHARGE D’AFFAIRES IN FRANCE

Armenpress
May 10 2006

YEREVAN, MAY 10, ARMENPRESS: A spokesman for Armenian foreign ministry,
Hamlet Gasparian, was appointed charge d’affaires in France. Gasparian
had already served in France as an aide to Armenian embassy in Paris.

He was appointed press secretary of the ministry in 2003 autumn. In
2005 he was picked up to coordinate and steer the Days of Italy in
Armenia. As charge d’affaires Gasparian is expected to help better
organize the Year of Armenia in France, a program of extensive events
set to start in autumn.

Prior to his diplomatic career Gasparian served as editor of an
Armenian daily Azg, head of Armenian National TV. Late last year he
was granted the rank of charge d’affaires and authorized minister by
president Kocharian.

Armenian foreign ministry said Vladimir Karapetian, head of press
and information division, was picked to replace Gasparian.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

THE PRESIDENT OF AGBU VISITS ANTELIAS

His Holiness Aram I received the president of the Armenian General
Benevolent Union (AGBU), Berdj Setragian,Esq. is his office in Antelias on
May 6. Deputy Director and member of the AGBU Central Committee, Sarkis
Demirdjian, also attended the meeting.

The two delegates of AGBU thanked His Holiness for the Encyclical he issued
on the occasion of the union’s centennial. The delegates discussed various
topics with the Pontiff, including cooperation between Armenia and the
Diaspora, issues related to the further organization of the Diaspora
communities and educational issues.

##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of the
Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union, DC
May 8 2006

Window on Eurasia: Aggressiveness on the Rise in Russia, Soviet-Era
Dissident Says

(May 8, 2006)
Paul Goble

Tallinn, May 8 – Grigoriy Pomerants, one of the oldest and most
prominent of surviving Soviet-era dissidents, says that hostility and
agression toward members of other groups is now on the rise in
Russian society, the combined product of the Soviet past, the Russian
present, and certain international trends as well.

In an interview published in last week’s „Kul’tura,’ Pomerants, who
was born shortly after the 1917 revolution and who experienced both
the horrors of Stalinism and the struggles of the samizdat movement,
said that „the roots of xenophobia and national intolerance go back a
long way’
( t=news&id=42789 ).

Asked how it was possible that fascism could re-emerge in a country
„which had defeated fascism more than 60 years ago,’ Pomeryants
pointed out that while Stalin fought fascism, the Soviet dictator
also had „carried out [his own] racial policy,’ one that led not only
to the deportation of whole peoples but to the anti-Semitic Doctors’
plot.

Unfortunately, he continued, „these actions of Stalin found a
response in the people’ just as did his war against Hitler. But the
real reason that extremists in Russia employ Nazi symbols, Pomeryants
aid, is that Aleksandr Barkashov, thee leader of Russian National
Unity (RNE) is „too stupid to be able to think up something new.’

The RNE leader simply picked up „’Mein Kampf’ and said: ‚Hitler’s
only mistake is that he underrated the Slavs. In everything else, he
was right.’ But now this is being applied more broadly: They beat the
Tajiks, who never bothered anythong, they beat peaceful Senegalese,
and they beat Vietnamese.’

But if the symbols of this new aggressiveness are very much on public
view, Pomeryants argued, the sources of this aggression are less
obvious at least to most observers. And in his interview, the former
dissident identifies three developments that he suggests have played
the greatest role.

The first reason, he suggests, is the collapse of hope and the rise
of radical income differentiation in post-Soviet Russia. Twenty years
ago, Pomeryants said, people in the Soviet Union were filled with
hope that they could overcome the past and build a bright future
easily and quickly.

But in the intervening period, these hopes have perished. Many of the
old cadres occupy senior positions. Income differential is
increasing. And many Russians now look with envy at those newly rich
people who travel about in Mercedes cars and „cover them with dirt’
in the process.

Not in a position to strike back at those in power, Pomeryants
continued, many Russians and especially the young have transferred
their anger to and taken out their aggression on those who are the
most defenseless in Russian society — non-Russians and foreigners.

The second was the failure of former Soviet president Mikhail
Gorbachev and other reformers to address ethnic issues on the
assumption that economic change would solve all of them. Indeed,
Pomeryants argued, much of what is going on now reflects the decision
of those people to „look through their fingers at the [February 1988]
pogrom in Sumgait.’

„Gorbachev naively thought that it would be possible to carry out
social reforms while leaving national ones for latter. The tension of
nationality relations was then hidden, and no one in the Politburo
was dealing with the extraordinarily ramified set of nationality
relations’ in the country.

When Azerbaijanis massacred Armenians in Sumgait in response to
Armenian demands that Nagorono-Karabakh be transferred from
Azerbaijani to Armenian control, Pomeryants noted, Moscow sent
soldiers „without bullets’ in their guns who were rapidly driven off
by a local population armed with „stones.’

„That was the signal,’ Pomeryants said, „whoever could, should go
ahead.’ And as a result, he continued, „’the Chechen project’ arose.
Had Sumgait not taken place [or had Moscow responded differently],
the Chechens would not have begun anything. They are not madmen.’

„But the signal was given,’ Pomeryants noted, „and [the Chechens
along with many other people] saw that power was lying in the
streets. The Chechen war with its horrific losses also unleashed the
beast in men. This too unleashed passions.’

And the third and especially dispiriting source of this trend,
Pomeryants said, is „a general crisis of civilization’ around the
world which he argued is connected with „a loss of values.’ As long
as force or the threat of an attack from outside was around, this
crisis was not much in evidence, he continued.

But now, in many cases, and especially in Russia, „there are no
values in the name of which people should life except for those
calling for immediate satisfaction’ – and such „values,’ if they are
indeed worthy of the name, do little to rein in human passios of even
the basest kind.

Asked why Russia might be especially vulnerable to what he described
as a worldwide trend, Pomeryants pointed to three reasons: the Soviet
past in which so many of Russia’s traditional values were destroyed,
the various cataclysms the Russian people have experienced over the
last century, and even the country’s enormous size.

Concerning this last point, Pomeryants noted that „after Ivan the
Teriblee, Russia was not able to return to normal for the entire 17th
century. [But over the same period] small Preotestan countries even
when they lived badly were more peaceful. And now they live very well
– in Norway, they do not [even] steal the profits from oil.’

Message de condoleances du pape a la suite de l’accident d’un avion armenien

Agence France Presse
3 mai 2006 mercredi 1:41 PM GMT

CITE DU VATICAN 3 mai 2006

Le pape Benoît XVI a envoye mercredi un message de condoleances a la
suite de la catastrophe aerienne qui s’est produite dans le sud de la
Russie lorsqu’un appareil armenien s’est abîme en mer Noire, causant
la mort des 113 personnes a bord.

“Informe de la recente catastrophe aerienne au bord de la Mer Noire,
le Saint-Père s’incline devant les nombreuses victimes et il invoque
pour elles la misericorde du seigneur, lui demandant de les
accueillir dans son royaume de paix”, indique un telegramme envoye au
nom du pape par le secretaire d’Etat du Vatican, le cardinal Angelo
Sodano, au nonce apostolique en Armenie.

“Le pape me charge d’exprimer sa vive sympathie et l’assurance de ses
prières aux familles des disparus, a toutes les personnes eprouvees
par ce drame, ainsi qu’aux autorites et a tout le peuple armenien”,
conclut le telegramme.

Un Airbus A320 de la compagnie armenienne Armavia s’est abîme dans la
nuit de mardi a mercredi en mer Noire, près de Sotchi, dans le sud de
la Russie, en raison, selon des premiers elements, d’une mauvaise
meteo. Selon des donnees provisoires, tous les passagers et membres
de l’equipage sont morts.

–Boundary_(ID_89dQpasLqFqEDjQC2WGrVA)–