Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has commented on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights “On Makuchyan and Minasyan against Azerbaijan and Hungary” dated May 26, 2020, ONA reports.
Head of press service of the MFA Leyla Abdullayeva said they had acknowledged the relevant decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
“Certainly, the decision should be studied at the lawyer expert level in order to concretely comment regarding it, but it is possible to share observations on the decision. Firstly, it should be taken into consideration that pain and suffering, with which our region faces at both national and individual levels today, originate from the hostile policy of Armenian nationalist leaders, based on hatred against Azerbaijani people, and Armenia’s aggressive policy against Azerbaijan. It is clear to all that occupant Armenia tries to distract attention of international community from the facts of ongoing illegal occupation in Azerbaijani lands and ethnic cleansing on civilian population by falsifying main reasons of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno Garabagh conflict. However Armenia’s responsibility for the occupation of Azerbaijani territories is confirmed in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on “Chiraqov and Others against Armenia” dated June 16, 2015. If Armenia really attaches importance to human rights and freedoms, as it is stated in words, and respects European Court, then should immediately end occupation of Azerbaijani territories, lasting for more than 30 years, and violation of rights of millions of Azerbaijanis. At the same time, official Yerevan has no moral right to put forward any requirement regarding the European Court unless execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on Chiraqovs’ case dated 2015, is provided”, noted the MFA official
L. Abdullayeva noted Armenia’s attempts for making the European Court a tool for its smearing campaign, politicizing the Court and involving it in its provocation campaign should be refused: “It is possible to say with decisions of the European Court that the Court has not provided main intention of Armenia, in fact. Thus, Court decision does not require cancellation of pardon decree, which is main cause of the disagreement, or reopening the case of the relevant person. On the other hand, claim on material violation of right of living, has also been refuted.”
The MFA official stressed the European Court has determined material aspect of the Article 2 of the European Convention (right of living) has not been violated by the Azerbaijani Government: “It means according to the final decision of the European Court, Ramil Safarov acted individually during conviction actions and did not represented Azerbaijani Government. Thus, the Azerbaijani Government can not bear international-legal responsibility for these deeds. At the same time, we think it had to be taken into consideration that official of Azerbaijan’s Armed Forces Ramil Safarov was born in Jabrayil district, which was occupied by Armenian armed forces in August of 1993, lost his close relatives in the war, and experienced pain and sufferings of the life of an internally-displaced person when he was a teenager, during his case in court.”
L. Abdullayeva also noted that pardon is a situation used in the world experience and according to the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, head of state has an authority to pardon: “I want to stress once more that all of these disasters, come from Armenia’s aggressive policy against Azerbaijan and its results, which have not resolved yet. The only way of ending hostility between two nations is the removal of the results of the conflict, it means removal of invasive armed forces from occupied Azerbaijan’s internationally-recognized territories and provision of fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of people, expelled from these lands. It would be better, the European Court noted Armenia’s aggressive policy against Azerbaijan and Ramil Safarov’s being a victim of the aggressive policy in its press release regarding the decision.”