Tweet
news.am, Armenia
Oct 31 2009
Gevorg Danielyan: Genocide denial must be criminally punishable offence
20:15 / 10/30/2009NEWS.am: Mr. Danielyan, how well, in terms of law,
is Armenia prepared for the possible reopening of the Armenian-Turkish
border, and what has to be done for this?
Answer: To be fully prepared for the reopening of the Armenian-Turkish
border ` in terms of law as well ` we have for a long time been
carrying out necessary work following the Armenian President's
instructions. In general, we plan to introduce amendments to the law,
which, on the one hand, would legally rule out all threats to national
security and, on the other hand, create favorable conditions for
developing effective bilateral cooperation and protecting citizens'
rights. This is a most complicated process, which is impossible to
outline. Moreover, haste may seriously affect the priorities.
NEWS.am: Many people voice concern that Turks may purchase lands the
borderlands. Are the concerns well founded?
Answer: I am sure that the concerns are unfounded in the context of
both legal and political decisions. The matter does not concern Turks
alone. Restricting property rights of foreign individuals and legal
entities in some territories meets the national security interests. In
this context, I cannot understand the political figures that speak of
the borderline regions alone, which you have mentioned in your
question. We should not set limits on lands alone. This principle must
equally apply to any immovable property ` not only private property,
but also property right (leasing, free use, etc..).
The security zone embraces both some of the borderline regions and
state territories that are of special importance in terms of national
security. As regards the claims that foreign citizens can purchase
lands under assumed names (and, in this context, it is reasonable to
permit them to legally do it for the process to be transparent), they
are not serious. The persons making the claims are unprofessional. It
is clear that persons who aim at undermining the state's security will
never act transparently.
Incidentally, under Article 35 of the Turkish Law `On land
registration', foreign citizens and commercial organizations have the
right to purchase immovable property in Turkey on reciprocal terms.
Another law, `On confined military zones and security belts',
prohibits foreign citizens and legal entities from purchasing
immovable property in such areas. By citing these numerous examples I
consider it advisable to stress that the reciprocity principle makes
us take preventive measures.
NEWS.am: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) proposes a law
stipulating punishment for denial of genocide. Do you share this
opinion? If not, why?
Answer: Your question needs specifying. The ARF cannot propose such a
law for me to be `for' or `against' it. Article 379/1 of the RA
Criminal Code stipulates punishment not only for denying genocide, but
also for denying, encouraging, justifying or belittling the gravity of
crimes against humanity.
NEWS.am: The ARF's position is that criminal punishment be stipulated
for denying the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western
Armenia. They propose that five, rather than four, years of
imprisonment be stipulated¦
Answer: We have proposed more radical solutions to the Government.
First, we proposed a complete revision of the article and removal of
the motive-related signs. Thus, the denial of genocide must involve
criminal responsibility irrespective of the motives (racial, ethnic,
religious, stirring up hatred, discrimination, violence, etc..). This
position is in harmony with the bill proposed by the ARF. We think,
however, that all the motive-related signs should be removed. They
should be viewed as imparting quality to a deed, which must be
decisive in determining severer punishment.
I do no think that we should single out the Armenian Genocide by
imposing severer punishment ` a year more ` for it. It is politically
unacceptable either: we must regard each case of genocide recognized
by the Republic of Armenia as a punishable offence. It is just more
significant when we denounce the Armenian Genocide by adopting our own
politico-legal acts, which contain unequivocal appraisals. It should
be noted that the state recognizes the crime both by adopting relevant
statutory acts and by acceding to relevant international documents.
Specifically, the Supreme Council adopted the law `On denouncing the
Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915' on November 22, 1988.
NEWS.am: Did Armenia really have to recognize Turkey's present-day
borders to establish relations with it? Why did the Armenian side
agree?
Answer: In this respect claims are being made that this implicitly
`legalized' the different treaties signed in the past, which run
counter to our national interests. I would like to specify that an
international agreement signed and ratified in conformity with the
established order can have legal force for our state. This requirement
is set by Article 6 of the RA Constitution. I do not think that there
are people who may claim that different interpretations of the
Protocols will make our state recognize the legal force of, for
example, the Treaty of Sèvres.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Oct 31 2009
Gevorg Danielyan: Genocide denial must be criminally punishable offence
20:15 / 10/30/2009NEWS.am: Mr. Danielyan, how well, in terms of law,
is Armenia prepared for the possible reopening of the Armenian-Turkish
border, and what has to be done for this?
Answer: To be fully prepared for the reopening of the Armenian-Turkish
border ` in terms of law as well ` we have for a long time been
carrying out necessary work following the Armenian President's
instructions. In general, we plan to introduce amendments to the law,
which, on the one hand, would legally rule out all threats to national
security and, on the other hand, create favorable conditions for
developing effective bilateral cooperation and protecting citizens'
rights. This is a most complicated process, which is impossible to
outline. Moreover, haste may seriously affect the priorities.
NEWS.am: Many people voice concern that Turks may purchase lands the
borderlands. Are the concerns well founded?
Answer: I am sure that the concerns are unfounded in the context of
both legal and political decisions. The matter does not concern Turks
alone. Restricting property rights of foreign individuals and legal
entities in some territories meets the national security interests. In
this context, I cannot understand the political figures that speak of
the borderline regions alone, which you have mentioned in your
question. We should not set limits on lands alone. This principle must
equally apply to any immovable property ` not only private property,
but also property right (leasing, free use, etc..).
The security zone embraces both some of the borderline regions and
state territories that are of special importance in terms of national
security. As regards the claims that foreign citizens can purchase
lands under assumed names (and, in this context, it is reasonable to
permit them to legally do it for the process to be transparent), they
are not serious. The persons making the claims are unprofessional. It
is clear that persons who aim at undermining the state's security will
never act transparently.
Incidentally, under Article 35 of the Turkish Law `On land
registration', foreign citizens and commercial organizations have the
right to purchase immovable property in Turkey on reciprocal terms.
Another law, `On confined military zones and security belts',
prohibits foreign citizens and legal entities from purchasing
immovable property in such areas. By citing these numerous examples I
consider it advisable to stress that the reciprocity principle makes
us take preventive measures.
NEWS.am: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) proposes a law
stipulating punishment for denial of genocide. Do you share this
opinion? If not, why?
Answer: Your question needs specifying. The ARF cannot propose such a
law for me to be `for' or `against' it. Article 379/1 of the RA
Criminal Code stipulates punishment not only for denying genocide, but
also for denying, encouraging, justifying or belittling the gravity of
crimes against humanity.
NEWS.am: The ARF's position is that criminal punishment be stipulated
for denying the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western
Armenia. They propose that five, rather than four, years of
imprisonment be stipulated¦
Answer: We have proposed more radical solutions to the Government.
First, we proposed a complete revision of the article and removal of
the motive-related signs. Thus, the denial of genocide must involve
criminal responsibility irrespective of the motives (racial, ethnic,
religious, stirring up hatred, discrimination, violence, etc..). This
position is in harmony with the bill proposed by the ARF. We think,
however, that all the motive-related signs should be removed. They
should be viewed as imparting quality to a deed, which must be
decisive in determining severer punishment.
I do no think that we should single out the Armenian Genocide by
imposing severer punishment ` a year more ` for it. It is politically
unacceptable either: we must regard each case of genocide recognized
by the Republic of Armenia as a punishable offence. It is just more
significant when we denounce the Armenian Genocide by adopting our own
politico-legal acts, which contain unequivocal appraisals. It should
be noted that the state recognizes the crime both by adopting relevant
statutory acts and by acceding to relevant international documents.
Specifically, the Supreme Council adopted the law `On denouncing the
Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey in 1915' on November 22, 1988.
NEWS.am: Did Armenia really have to recognize Turkey's present-day
borders to establish relations with it? Why did the Armenian side
agree?
Answer: In this respect claims are being made that this implicitly
`legalized' the different treaties signed in the past, which run
counter to our national interests. I would like to specify that an
international agreement signed and ratified in conformity with the
established order can have legal force for our state. This requirement
is set by Article 6 of the RA Constitution. I do not think that there
are people who may claim that different interpretations of the
Protocols will make our state recognize the legal force of, for
example, the Treaty of Sèvres.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress