13:16, 2 April, 2020
YEREVAN, APRIL 2, ARMENPRESS. Five prison guards at the Vardashen Correctional Facility of Yerevan have tested positive for the novel coronavirus, the justice ministry reported.
According to the report, the infected guards are members of the external security team of the facility and do not have any contact with the inmates.
28 employees of the prison have been quarantined pending test results.
Edited and translated by Stepan Kocharyan
ArmInfo. Charitable organization "Armenian Support Team" launched a new charity project "New Armenia – Ancient Armenia!" In Armenia or Unknown treasures of Armenia.
According to the head of the charity organization and blogger Roman Baghdasaryan, during the project, throughout the course of 2020, the "team" will acquaint the public and tell her about the unique cultural and historical monuments of medieval Armenia, which, unfortunately, are known only to a narrow circle of specialists. They did not enter the annals of the popular "treasures" of ancient Armenia and, strangely enough, were completely ignored not only by those who were called to preserve and restore the monuments, but also by holy Etchmiadzin.
The first such monastery is Nekhuts, of the 10th century, located in the village of Arzakan of the Kotayk region. The "team" organized shooting of the monastery with the participation of model and TV presenter Ani Zakaryan, dressed in a national costume (taraz), provided to the project free of charge by fashion designer Lilil Melikyan. The "Teams" will also focus on other historical monuments lost in the mountains of Armenia and unreasonably forgotten, which have not become its hallmark.
These "forgotten" ancient Armenian churches will find "new life" on postcards and possibly on calendars. In autumn, the authors of the project in Yerevan intend to organize a photo exhibition of so far six lost Nekhutsu similar monasteries and churches, which will be prepared by the project photographer – Manvel Harutyunyan. "There are a large number of magnificent historical and architectural monuments in Armenia, which no one knows about, which are not interesting to either the state or Etchmiadzin. It is necessary to somehow "take them out of nonexistence", look for investors to preserve and preserve, and in some cases, to restore. It is important to lay new tourist routes in these ancient places. And in this way we want to draw attention to this "lost> heritage of the people. This will help give a new impetus to the development of tourism," says Baghdasaryan.
15:12, 9 March, 2020
YEREVAN, MARCH 9, ARMENPRESS. The Armenian Scouts in Damascus carried out a stand of appreciation towards members of the People’s Assembly [Parliament] for adopting a unanimous resolution recognizing and condemning the Armenian Genocide, SANA news agency reports.
The scouts performed the Syrian Arab national anthem and scout performances, expressing greetings and appreciation to the members of the Assembly.
During his reception of the members of the scouts who participated in the stand, Speaker of the People’s Assembly Hamouda Sabbagh pointed out to the symbolism and the importance of their stand which coincides with the glorious anniversary of the 8th of March revolution. Sabbagh affirmed that the People’s Assembly’s decision to recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide came in its correct historical context because this heinous crime is condemned by all standards.
He reiterated that such crimes will stay alive in their memory, therefore the unanimous decision of the People’s Assembly had a special meaning because it is one of the rare decisions that was issued unanimously and not by majority, confirming that whoever does not recognize this genocide is considered a partner in this crime.
Head of the Syrian-Armenian Parliamentary Friendship Society in the People’s Assembly, Dr. Nora Eryssian, underlined the importance of this stand, which expresses gratitude and appreciation to members of the People’s Assembly for their unanimous resolution.
Within the last two months, the Armenian military killed four soldiers guarding the borders of Azerbaijan in the far western Gazakh district, which lies on the border with Armenia. / Courtesy
Leyla Abdullayeva, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, said that it is Armenia that threatens security, citing the killing of Azerbaijani border guards over the past few weeks.
“Once again, we bring to the attention of the Armenian side that the current status-quo established as a result of the use of force and ethnic cleansing [by Armenia], is in no way connected with the concept of security,” Abdullayeva explained in a written statement issued on March 10.
"The occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the presence of the Armenian armed forces on these territories are the source of the main threat to the security of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has always advocated the universality and indivisibility of the concept of security.”
“The withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, as well as the further cohabitation of the Armenian and Azerbaijani population of the region in the conditions of peace and the rule of law, are the determinants of building trust and rapprochement in the name of ensuring the region’s common security and prosperity.”
Abdullayeva’s words were in response to statements that appeared in Armenian media on Tuesday in which officials in Yerevan accused Azerbaijan’s military of deliberate exacerbation of the security situation along the borders. She said Armenian diplomats have seemingly confused the reality of Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and their international obligations.
“The Armenian side must correctly understand the existing reality and follow the demands of the international community for the complete, unconditional and immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, as well as the return of forcibly displaced Azerbaijanis to their homes, which is confirmed in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and other numerous decisions of international organizations.”
“Let no one doubt that Azerbaijan will ensure the restoration of justice, as well as its own territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.”
Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at odds for almost three decades because of the conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region which is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. With the dissolution of USSR in 1991, Armenia began an all-out military campaign against Azerbaijan to capture the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, which had been partially populated with ethnic Armenians living alongside indigenous Azerbaijanis.
As a result of the three-year bloody war that ended only with a ceasefire in 1994, Armenia forcibly occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan's internationally recognized territory, which includes the Nagorno-Karabakh region and seven adjacent districts. The war claimed the lives of over 30,000 Azerbaijanis and expelled one million more from their homeland. In 1993, the United Nations Security Council passed four legally binding resolutions demanding Armenia to pull its armed forces back from the occupied territories, but all four go unfulfilled to this day.
Within the last two months, the Armenian military killed four soldiers guarding the borders of Azerbaijan in the far western Gazakh district, which lies on the border with Armenia. The last of the Azerbaijani conscript that fell to the Armenian bullet was Eltun Garayev, who was killed during a ceasefire breach by the Armenian armed forces stationed along the border.
16:54, 5 March, 2020
Turkish state news agency “Anadolu” distorted the provisions of the verdict related to the Khojaly events. Along with the fake propaganda thesis by Azerbaijan, the article published on February 26 illuminated the official verdict of “Fatullayev vs Azerbaijan” case completely out of the context and obviously distorted.
According to their claims, ECHR stated that “what happened in Khojaly amounts to a war crime or a crime against humanity”. These false claims were later on spread by an Arabic website – Albosala.com.
Fatullayev VS Azerbaijan
In 2007 Azerbaijan’s law enforcement organs opened a criminal case against the editor-in-chief of the “Real Azerbaijan” journal Eynula Fatullayev accusing him of “statements of defamations” related to the Khojaly events. Taken as the basis to launch a criminal case were Fatullayev’s critical articles about the state officials published on the pages of “Real Azerbaijan” as well as the articles containing evidence contradicting the official thesis about the events in Khojaly (ECHR verdict, 1st paragraph). In February 2005, the editor of the journal started his thread of articles under “Karabakh diary” name, summing up his thoughts after his 10-day visit to the Republic of Artsakh.
“I have visited this town [Naftalan] where I have spoken to hundreds (I repeat, hundreds) of refugees who insisted that there had been a corridor and that they had remained alive owing to this corridor … [They were killed] not by [some] mysterious [shooters], but by provocateurs from the NFA battalions … [The corpses] had been mutilated by our own …”(1,2,3).
He was sentenced to a prison term by the Azerbaijani court and appealed the decision of the court in ECHR where the verdict of the court was assessed as an act of violation of Fatullayev’s rights in a number of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, ordering the immediate release of the journalist from the Azerbaijani authorities.
ECHR verdict and the Khojaly events
On the 87th paragraph of the official verdict of the ECHR on Khojaly states, “Moreover, the Court notes that it is an integral part of freedom of _expression_ to seek historical truth. At the same time, it is not the Court's role to arbitrate the underlying historical issues which are part of a continuing debate between historians that shapes opinion as to the events which took place and their interpretation. Court accordingly considers that it is not its task to settle the differences in opinions about the historical facts relating to the Khojaly events''. This being said, the Court has never made such a decision in connection with the contradictory views or facts and has never included the statement published by Anadolu in his verdict.
Another statement of the verdict reads, “However, apart from this aspect, there appears to be a lack of either clarity or unanimity in respect of certain other aspects and details relating to the Khojaly events. For example, there are conflicting views as to whether a safe escape corridor was provided to the civilians fleeing their town. Likewise, there exist various opinions about the role and responsibility of the Azerbaijani authorities and military forces in these events, with some reports suggesting they could have done more to protect the civilians or that their actions could have somehow contributed to the gravity of the situation. Questions have arisen whether the proper defence of the town had been organized and, if not, whether this was the result of a domestic political struggle in Azerbaijan.
In view of the above Court considers the various matters related to the Khojaly events “to be open to ongoing debate among historians” and “as such should be a matter of general interest in modern Azerbaijani society.”
In this regard, the Court noted that a democratic society should tolerate discussion of topics that may be perceived in this society as a war crime or a crime against humanity.
Anadolu agency distorted the content of the decision rendered in the case, tearing out part of the said sentence of the 87th paragraph from the context and presenting it as a "conclusion of the court". In fact, the Court actually found that the contradictory information related to the Khojaly events did not allow to make a final conclusion and, at the same time, clarified that as an arbiter the solution of such case does not fall into its responsibilities.
ECHR called into question the theses about Khojaly that were spread by Azerbaijan and underlined the uncertainty of the parts that need to be studied, stating: “Rather, the applicant [Fatullayev] was supporting one of the conflicting opinions in the debate concerning the existence of an escape corridor for the refugees and, based on that, expressing the view that some Azerbaijani fighters might have also borne a share of the responsibility for the massacre”. Besides this, the Court also stated that “the role and responsibility of the Azerbaijani authorities in either failing to prevent or contributing to the Khojaly events is the subject of ongoing debate”.
Fatullayev was released on a presidential pardon in 2011 and established Azerbaijan’s Haqqin.az (Azerbaijani version – Virtualaz.org) website which currently serves as a propaganda platform for Aliyev. Fatuallayev’s case is a vivid example of how everyone who speaks or acts against the authorities is treated unless they don’t act the way the Azerbaijani authorities command.
When it comes to the media that carry out anti-Armenian propaganda on behalf of the Azerbaijani authorities – they have constantly faced justified arguments from the Armenian side, and regardless of whether the Turkish or other media sources become another tool for Azerbaijani propaganda, the reality remains the same. In 2012 Ilham Aliyev declared that “Armenians spread all over the world are our main enemies”, approving that anti-Armenian propaganda has become the main policy of present-day Azerbaijan.
Turkish state news agency “Anadolu” distorted the provisions of the verdict related to the Khojaly events. Along with the fake propaganda thesis by Azerbaijan, the article published on February 26 illuminated the official verdict of “Fatullayev vs Azerbaijan” case completely out of the context and obviously distorted.
According to their claims, ECHR stated that “what happened in Khojaly amounts to a war crime or a crime against humanity”. These false claims were later on spread by an Arabic website – Albosala.com.
Fatullayev VS Azerbaijan
In 2007 Azerbaijan’s law enforcement organs opened a criminal case against the editor-in-chief of the “Real Azerbaijan” journal Eynula Fatullayev accusing him of “statements of defamations” related to the Khojaly events. Taken as the basis to launch a criminal case were Fatullayev’s critical articles about the state officials published on the pages of “Real Azerbaijan” as well as the articles containing evidence contradicting the official thesis about the events in Khojaly (ECHR verdict, 1st paragraph). In February 2005, the editor of the journal started his thread of articles under “Karabakh diary” name, summing up his thoughts after his 10-day visit to the Republic of Artsakh.
“I have visited this town [Naftalan] where I have spoken to hundreds (I repeat, hundreds) of refugees who insisted that there had been a corridor and that they had remained alive owing to this corridor … [They were killed] not by [some] mysterious [shooters], but by provocateurs from the NFA battalions … [The corpses] had been mutilated by our own …”(1,2,3).
He was sentenced to a prison term by the Azerbaijani court and appealed the decision of the court in ECHR where the verdict of the court was assessed as an act of violation of Fatullayev’s rights in a number of provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, ordering the immediate release of the journalist from the Azerbaijani authorities.
ECHR verdict and the Khojaly events
On the 87th paragraph of the official verdict of the ECHR on Khojaly states, “Moreover, the Court notes that it is an integral part of freedom of _expression_ to seek historical truth. At the same time, it is not the Court's role to arbitrate the underlying historical issues which are part of a continuing debate between historians that shapes opinion as to the events which took place and their interpretation. Court accordingly considers that it is not its task to settle the differences in opinions about the historical facts relating to the Khojaly events''. This being said, the Court has never made such a decision in connection with the contradictory views or facts and has never included the statement published by Anadolu in his verdict.
Another statement of the verdict reads, “However, apart from this aspect, there appears to be a lack of either clarity or unanimity in respect of certain other aspects and details relating to the Khojaly events. For example, there are conflicting views as to whether a safe escape corridor was provided to the civilians fleeing their town. Likewise, there exist various opinions about the role and responsibility of the Azerbaijani authorities and military forces in these events, with some reports suggesting they could have done more to protect the civilians or that their actions could have somehow contributed to the gravity of the situation. Questions have arisen whether the proper defence of the town had been organized and, if not, whether this was the result of a domestic political struggle in Azerbaijan.
In view of the above Court considers the various matters related to the Khojaly events “to be open to ongoing debate among historians” and “as such should be a matter of general interest in modern Azerbaijani society.”
In this regard, the Court noted that a democratic society should tolerate discussion of topics that may be perceived in this society as a war crime or a crime against humanity.
Anadolu agency distorted the content of the decision rendered in the case, tearing out part of the said sentence of the 87th paragraph from the context and presenting it as a "conclusion of the court". In fact, the Court actually found that the contradictory information related to the Khojaly events did not allow to make a final conclusion and, at the same time, clarified that as an arbiter the solution of such case does not fall into its responsibilities.
ECHR called into question the theses about Khojaly that were spread by Azerbaijan and underlined the uncertainty of the parts that need to be studied, stating: “Rather, the applicant [Fatullayev] was supporting one of the conflicting opinions in the debate concerning the existence of an escape corridor for the refugees and, based on that, expressing the view that some Azerbaijani fighters might have also borne a share of the responsibility for the massacre”. Besides this, the Court also stated that “the role and responsibility of the Azerbaijani authorities in either failing to prevent or contributing to the Khojaly events is the subject of ongoing debate”.
Fatullayev was released on a presidential pardon in 2011 and established Azerbaijan’s Haqqin.az (Azerbaijani version – Virtualaz.org) website which currently serves as a propaganda platform for Aliyev. Fatuallayev’s case is a vivid example of how everyone who speaks or acts against the authorities is treated unless they don’t act the way the Azerbaijani authorities command.
When it comes to the media that carry out anti-Armenian propaganda on behalf of the Azerbaijani authorities – they have constantly faced justified arguments from the Armenian side, and regardless of whether the Turkish or other media sources become another tool for Azerbaijani propaganda, the reality remains the same. In 2012 Ilham Aliyev declared that “Armenians spread all over the world are our main enemies”, approving that anti-Armenian propaganda has become the main policy of present-day Azerbaijan.
Vanuhi Karapetyan
19:28, 6 March, 2020
YEREVAN, MARCH 6, ARMENPRESS. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan distributes leaflets related to the Constitutional referendum scheduled on April 5 at Yerevan subway stations, ARMENPRESS reports Pashinyan posted a live broadcast on his Facebook page.
Nikol Pashinyan is accompanied by his daughters Mariam and Shushanik, who present flowers to women.
The Constitutional changes are about suspending the powers of the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Hrayr Tovmasyan and 6 members of the Court.
Edited and translated by Tigran Sirekanyan