ECHR ruling has implications for the Karabakh conflict and beyond.

On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg gave a judgment in the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (application no. 13216/05). The Court held, by a majority that there had been "a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights; a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention; and a continuing violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The case concerned the complaints by six Azerbaijani refugees that they were unable to return to their homes and property in the district of Lachin, in Azerbaijan, from where they had been forced to flee in 1992 during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

There are currently more than one thousand individual applications pending before the Court which were lodged by persons displaced during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the applicants' case, the Court confirmed that "Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding territories and thus had jurisdiction over the district of Lachin. The Court considered that there was no justification for denying the applicants access to their property without providing them with compensation. The fact that peace negotiations were ongoing did not free the Government from their duty to take other measures. What was called for was a property claims mechanism which would be easily accessible to allow the applicants and others in their situation to have their property rights restored and to obtain compensation."

You can read the ruling of the Court on the ECHR website here.

Initially, Armenia dismissed the ruling, and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, addressing a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Yerevan two days later, said that only the OSCE Minsk Group had the mandate to concern itself with the Karabakh conflict and its settlement, and asked that other international organisations and institutions should not interfere in the process. Nalbandian said "The efforts towards the settlement of conflicts should be held in the frameworks of special negotiation formats and we should refrain from steps that could hinder these negotiation processes." You can read the speech of Minister nalbandian on the website of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, here.

It took Azerbaijan a while for it to give a proper assessment to the Court ruling. Azerbaijan is currently locked in a number of disputes with the Council of Europe, under whose jurisdiction the Court operates. The disputes concern primarily the domestic political situation in Azerbaijan, but also nuances in the Council's statements on the Karabakh conflict. Following the approval of a recent resolution on Azerbaijan in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) the head of the Delegation of Azerbaijan Samad Sayedov even said that Azerbaijan was considering leaving the Council of Europe. Currently Azerbaijan is also at odds with the OSCE and in the last days has closed its office in Baku.

However the ruling of the European Court in the Chiragov and others versus Armenia case is clearly of huge significance for Azerbaijan's claims for the restoration of the rights of refugees and IDPs displaced by the conflict in the 1990s.

Azerbaijan has now given its first comprehensive assessment of the ruling in a long interview that the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov has given to the news agencies APA and Azertac. Mammadyarov described the judgement as "unprecedented" and having "far-reaching implications". The Azerbaijani Minister said "this is the first judgment of an authoritative Court that, while considering the merits of the case, provided impartial, third party analysis of the situation and legal assessment of the circumstances that led to the violation of fundamental human rights of Azerbaijani citizens guaranteed under the Convention. In particular, the Court reaffirmed the right of displaced persons to return to their homes or places of habitual residence and recalled the relevant standards and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law relating to the legal and technical issues surrounding housing and property restitution."

 Mammadyarov added that "the ruling of the Court reaffirmed that the right to return of the Azerbaijani population is undisputed and any solution will have to ensure effective exercise of this right. What should not be overlooked is that the said judgment of the Court's Grand Chamber is final and legally binding. The Council of Europe has a well-established mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Court's decisions. After the judgment of ECHR, the issue of protection of the rights of Azerbaijani population expelled from the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the other surrounding territories shall remain on the radar screen of the Council of Europe and its structures."

The Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan said that the judgement of the European Cout of Human Rights should also guide the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair.

You can read the full interview of Foreign Minister Mammadyarov on the APA website here.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment:

"The ruling of the ECHR took ten years to come, but for the displaced persons from the Karabakh conflict it is a welcome and highly significant development. For too long the plight of the refugees and IDPs from the conflicts in the South Caucasus has been marginalised as discussions centred on political and geo-political considerations, with too much emphasis on territory and not enough on people. The ECHR judgement changes all that - it brings people right back into the discussion, and all concerned need to take heed of this.

It took Azerbaijan three weeks to fully admit the importance and significance of the European court ruling, despite the fact that in this case the ruling was a welcome one for Baku. The ruling did not fit the narrative coming out of Baku in the last months which demonised Europe and European institutions and projected them as enemies of Azerbaijan.

On the other hand Armenia's attempt to downplay the ruling as irrelevant and to return the focus to the Minsk process is misplaced. As a member of the Council of Europe Armenia is obliged to abide by the Court's rulings. The ruling puts pressure on Armenia to clarify its policy towards the issue of refugees and IDPs.

The ruling of the ECHR therefore has implications all round, implications which will be with us for a long time."

Source: commonspace.eu

photo: The Grand Chamber of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.


 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)