Tweet
Ashot Melikyan. `European institutions should be more considerate.'
December 19 2013
On December 17, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) arrived at a
decision that the denial of the Armenian Genocide in 1915 is
consistent with the principle of the right to freedom of expression.
Aravot.am learned about is from `Hürriyet' daily news, which also
stated that the decision was achieved based on the application of DoÄ?u
Perinçek, Chairman of the Turkish `Workers' Party', and that it is not
final, and within three months the parties can appeal to the ECHR
Grand palace. In the conversation with Aravot.am, Ashot Melikyan,
Chairman of Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, referring to
the ECHR decision, said the following, `There are different
manifestations of freedom of expression in different countries. For
example, rumors were going on in France about the adoption of the bill
on genocide denial, which is criminally punishable. But, there are
European countries, no matter what position they express, there should
be no restrictions there. Here, it is worth mentioning the fact of
caricatures of Muhammad in Denmark. People there consider that the
freedom of expression allows doing all these things. As for the issue
of our history, I think that Turkey, first, then the European
institutions should be more considerate and understand that it is
about a tragic past of one entire nation. And, if a nation is giving
meaning to every word in a very painful issue for it, then human
ethics requires making very careful expressions and decisions,
especially that the European Council and the European institutions in
their numerous documents and the European Convention state in which
case the freedom of expression may have reasonable restrictions to
some extent.' Ashot Melikyan thinks that the European Court should
have heeded to this fact. He is convinced that the denial of genocide
can be considered as a manifestation of freedom of expression, but, as
he said, `There are a lot of historical facts, corroborated by
evidences of many eyewitnesses, so these documents are already the
basis that the denial is an irresponsible move, an irresponsible
expression. When the court provides legal enforcement and makes a
reference to the freedom of expression, I think, it's so not
justified. There are many provisions in a number of documents of the
Council of Europe against racism and other types of discrimination,
and the European Court must also take the provisions of these
documents into account. It is very good that this decision is not
final, and there is an opportunity to appeal. I think that the
Republic of Armenia and other countries realize that freedom of
expression is one of the most important rights, but there are a lot of
important restrictions, which should be heeded.'
Eva HAKOBYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/12/19/163092/
December 19 2013
On December 17, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) arrived at a
decision that the denial of the Armenian Genocide in 1915 is
consistent with the principle of the right to freedom of expression.
Aravot.am learned about is from `Hürriyet' daily news, which also
stated that the decision was achieved based on the application of DoÄ?u
Perinçek, Chairman of the Turkish `Workers' Party', and that it is not
final, and within three months the parties can appeal to the ECHR
Grand palace. In the conversation with Aravot.am, Ashot Melikyan,
Chairman of Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, referring to
the ECHR decision, said the following, `There are different
manifestations of freedom of expression in different countries. For
example, rumors were going on in France about the adoption of the bill
on genocide denial, which is criminally punishable. But, there are
European countries, no matter what position they express, there should
be no restrictions there. Here, it is worth mentioning the fact of
caricatures of Muhammad in Denmark. People there consider that the
freedom of expression allows doing all these things. As for the issue
of our history, I think that Turkey, first, then the European
institutions should be more considerate and understand that it is
about a tragic past of one entire nation. And, if a nation is giving
meaning to every word in a very painful issue for it, then human
ethics requires making very careful expressions and decisions,
especially that the European Council and the European institutions in
their numerous documents and the European Convention state in which
case the freedom of expression may have reasonable restrictions to
some extent.' Ashot Melikyan thinks that the European Court should
have heeded to this fact. He is convinced that the denial of genocide
can be considered as a manifestation of freedom of expression, but, as
he said, `There are a lot of historical facts, corroborated by
evidences of many eyewitnesses, so these documents are already the
basis that the denial is an irresponsible move, an irresponsible
expression. When the court provides legal enforcement and makes a
reference to the freedom of expression, I think, it's so not
justified. There are many provisions in a number of documents of the
Council of Europe against racism and other types of discrimination,
and the European Court must also take the provisions of these
documents into account. It is very good that this decision is not
final, and there is an opportunity to appeal. I think that the
Republic of Armenia and other countries realize that freedom of
expression is one of the most important rights, but there are a lot of
important restrictions, which should be heeded.'
Eva HAKOBYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/12/19/163092/