Tweet
COMPENSATION CAN ONLY FOLLOW KARABAKH PEACE DEAL
news.az
Nov 14 2011
Azerbaijan
Lawyer Erkin Gadirli believes that the compensation claims of Armenian
refugees from Azerbaijan are entirely unfounded.
"The problem, of course, exists and its its humanitarian significance
cannot be diminished. There were pogroms, expulsions and, consequently,
loss of property on both sides," Gadirli said, commenting on recent
remarks by the head of the "Our Home Armenia" NGO, Nikolay Babajanyan.
There was no private property according to Soviet law which was
in effect in both Armenia and Azerbaijan during the pogroms and
expulsions, he said.
"Formally, the majority of the housing stock was owned by the
government while a much smaller portion was owned by cooperative and
collective farm organizations.
"There was very little about 'personal property' in Soviet
legislation. Of course, this does not rule out the question of possible
compensation, but significantly complicates the legal procedures and
financial evaluation.
"The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani refugees from
Armenia had no access to privatization in these countries during the
years of independence," the lawyer noted.
"Innocent refugees on both sides are hostage to the aggressive,
historically and politically blind, irresponsible actions of the
Armenian leadership," Gadirli stated.
"The situation itself, generated by the war and subsequent occupation
of Azerbaijani territory and complicated by the protracted negotiating
process, makes the question of compensation inappropriate."
According to the lawyer, the Azerbaijani side has no unilateral legal
commitment to pay compensation for damage to Armenian refugees.
"Most Armenians sold or exchanged their flats before they left
Azerbaijan. Certainly, had it not been for the conflict, they would
never have left Azerbaijan. In this sense, it is possible to say
that they were obliged to leave. But their departure with the sale
and exchange of property makes the compensation issue not relevant.
"It is more difficult with those who really fell victim to pogroms
and persecution. But their problem is based on the overall context
of the conflict. The conflict is not between private citizens or
groups from whom the state has to secure its citizens. The conflict
is between states. And this conflict, despite inflicted stereotypes,
is not ethnic but territorial.
"Civil law differentiates between principal and secondary notions.
Secondary ones always follow the principal. In relation to real estate,
land is the principal notion and a house on it is secondary.
In analogy with civil law it is possible to say that the secondary
issue can have no solution before the principal issue - the issue of
land has been solved," he said.
Gadirli also said that any attempts to view this important and
sensitive humanitarian problem as an opportunity for compensation for
damages suffered by the refugees means taking the problem beyond the
overall boundaries of the conflict settlement.
"Since the conflict is directly between the states, the settlement
of this problem can only be mutual. We should not forget that the
context of the conflict is much wider than the frontal zone. The
situation of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan cannot be viewed in
isolation from the situation of Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia,
as well as the occupied part of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
"Thus, no party bears unilateral legal commitments. A serious attitude
to the problem must be developed from the clear and mutually acceptable
conditions of a final peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
rather than run ahead of the terms," Gadirli said.
From: Baghdasarian
news.az
Nov 14 2011
Azerbaijan
Lawyer Erkin Gadirli believes that the compensation claims of Armenian
refugees from Azerbaijan are entirely unfounded.
"The problem, of course, exists and its its humanitarian significance
cannot be diminished. There were pogroms, expulsions and, consequently,
loss of property on both sides," Gadirli said, commenting on recent
remarks by the head of the "Our Home Armenia" NGO, Nikolay Babajanyan.
There was no private property according to Soviet law which was
in effect in both Armenia and Azerbaijan during the pogroms and
expulsions, he said.
"Formally, the majority of the housing stock was owned by the
government while a much smaller portion was owned by cooperative and
collective farm organizations.
"There was very little about 'personal property' in Soviet
legislation. Of course, this does not rule out the question of possible
compensation, but significantly complicates the legal procedures and
financial evaluation.
"The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani refugees from
Armenia had no access to privatization in these countries during the
years of independence," the lawyer noted.
"Innocent refugees on both sides are hostage to the aggressive,
historically and politically blind, irresponsible actions of the
Armenian leadership," Gadirli stated.
"The situation itself, generated by the war and subsequent occupation
of Azerbaijani territory and complicated by the protracted negotiating
process, makes the question of compensation inappropriate."
According to the lawyer, the Azerbaijani side has no unilateral legal
commitment to pay compensation for damage to Armenian refugees.
"Most Armenians sold or exchanged their flats before they left
Azerbaijan. Certainly, had it not been for the conflict, they would
never have left Azerbaijan. In this sense, it is possible to say
that they were obliged to leave. But their departure with the sale
and exchange of property makes the compensation issue not relevant.
"It is more difficult with those who really fell victim to pogroms
and persecution. But their problem is based on the overall context
of the conflict. The conflict is not between private citizens or
groups from whom the state has to secure its citizens. The conflict
is between states. And this conflict, despite inflicted stereotypes,
is not ethnic but territorial.
"Civil law differentiates between principal and secondary notions.
Secondary ones always follow the principal. In relation to real estate,
land is the principal notion and a house on it is secondary.
In analogy with civil law it is possible to say that the secondary
issue can have no solution before the principal issue - the issue of
land has been solved," he said.
Gadirli also said that any attempts to view this important and
sensitive humanitarian problem as an opportunity for compensation for
damages suffered by the refugees means taking the problem beyond the
overall boundaries of the conflict settlement.
"Since the conflict is directly between the states, the settlement
of this problem can only be mutual. We should not forget that the
context of the conflict is much wider than the frontal zone. The
situation of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan cannot be viewed in
isolation from the situation of Azerbaijani refugees from Armenia,
as well as the occupied part of Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh.
"Thus, no party bears unilateral legal commitments. A serious attitude
to the problem must be developed from the clear and mutually acceptable
conditions of a final peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia,
rather than run ahead of the terms," Gadirli said.
From: Baghdasarian