Tweet
Zoryan Institute
George Shirinian, Executive Director
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON
Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807
Fax: 416-512-1736
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Shannon Scully
DATE: January 28, 2015
TEL: 416-250-9807
European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber hears
Perinçek v. Switzerland case
Strasbourg, France-The European Court of Human Rights held a Grand Chamber
hearing today, Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 9.15 a.m. in Strasbourg,
France on the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland (application no. 27510/08).
The case concerns the criminal conviction of Turkish politician Doðu
Perinçek for publicly denying the Armenian Genocide while in Switzerland.
On March 9, 2007, the Lausanne Police Court had convicted Mr. Perinçek of
racial discrimination under Article 261 bis, Paragraph 4 of the Swiss
Criminal Code, finding that his motives were of a racist tendency and did
not merely contribute to a historical debate. After exhausting his appeals,
which were dismissed at various levels of the Swiss courts including the
Federal Court of Switzerland, Mr. Perinçek's appealed to the ECHR on June
10, 2008.
View the trial on the ECHR website: http://www.echr.coe.int/ by clicking on
Webcast, Perinçek v. Switzerland (no. 27510/08)
The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (IIGHRS)
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute) was represented as observers at the
Grand Chamber, by its President, Mr. K.M. Greg Sarkissian and Mr. R.
Bedrosyan, an advisor to the Zoryan Institute on Turkish-Armenian issues.
They had worked jointly with the Human Rights Association of Turkey and the
Truth Justice Memory Centre to submit a third party amicus brief, for which
this Armenian-Turkish coalition had been granted leave by the Grand Chamber.
According to Payam Akhavan, the lawyer representing a coalition of Turkish
and Armenian human rights associations:
We have emphasized that the case is not about the historical truth as such.
>From the perspective of human rights law, freedom of expression under
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is subjected to
certain limitations. One of those is when speech amounts to incitement to
discrimination and hatred. So debates about the historical truth or legal
classification of atrocities as genocide or some other label are not the
real issue. The fundamental issue is whether Perinçek's statements when
considered in their proper context constitute incitement to discrimination
and hatred.
The Applicant, Mr. Doðu Perinçek, Chairman of the Socialist Workers Party of
Turkey, with ties to the nationalist Talat Pasha Organization, stated the
following:
We are here for the freedom of expression of the people of Europe. I have
always shared the pain of our Armenian nationals...Genocide allegations have
turned into a tool to humiliate the Turks.
Mr. Perinçek had travelled to Switzerland to speak at a conference and made
public appearances wherein he referred to the Armenian Genocide as an
"international lie" and defended his position during today's hearing as
follows:
This is an imperialist lie, an international lie. It's been brought to the
fore by the Imperialist powers - they were the parties to the First World
War, they were against the Ottoman Empire which was basically why such a
propaganda was started against the Ottoman Empire.
Frank Schurmann, the lawyer representing Switzerland, stressed that
Perinçek's statements amounted to hate speech against Armenians. Mr.
Schurmann substantiated this by referring to the written submission jointly
prepared by the IIGHRS and the two Turkish NGOs which documented Perinçek's
racist and anti-Armenian activities in Turkey.
Mr. Gevorg Kostanyan, prosecutor general of Armenia and Agent representing
the government of Armenia during the proceedings, said:
As an intervener, Armenia's role is to point to the correct principles under
which this case should be decided and to indicate errors that have infected
the lower court judgment. Whether or not its conclusion was correct does not
matter, as much as certain misstatements of fact, which have comforted
genocide deniers throughout the world. We are here to ensure that such
errors should never be repeated by a court that speaks in the name of human
rights.
Mr. Geoffrey Robertson, Counsel representing the Armenian Government, began
his argument by referring to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights:
It sets up a presumption in favour of free speech, in a Convention that
protects other rights to human dignity, to live free of torture and
discrimination, to say "I am Jewish," "I am Muslim," or "I am Armenian,"
without fear that the race we happen to be born into will be stigmatised as
inferior or sub-human.
He also referred to "egregious errors" made by the Lower Chamber, which he
urged the Grand Chamber not to repeat. Mr. Robertson summed up the key issue
in the case as follows:
The issue in this case is whether the Swiss law, under which this man,
Perinçek, was convicted.conforms to the Freedom of Expression Guarantee
under Article 10 of the European Convention.Article 10 has its proviso,
which permits speech to be restrained by law on those occasions when it's
likely to and intended to, cause harm to incite racial violence or hatred.
Now, in the mouth of a rabid racist with a doctorate in law and a political
party at his back, and people waving flags and fists outside this Court now,
genocide denial can have a double impact: It makes the survivors of
genocide and their children and grandchildren feel the worthlessness and
contempt and inferiority that the initial perpetrators intended, and it
incites admiration for those perpetrators and a dangerous desire to emulate
them. In this case, the Swiss courts decided that Perinçek's intentions
were racist.that his words in the Turkish language were designed to arouse
his supporters in Turkey to hate Armenians and applaud his hero, Talat
Pasha, the Ottoman Hitler.
Mrs. Amal Alamuddin-Clooney, also representing Armenia, made her opening
statement thusly,
The most important error in the Court's judgment is that it has cast doubt
on the fact that there was a genocide against the Armenian people 100 years
ago. I will argue that a finding on genocide was first, not necessary in
this case; second, that it was reached without a proper forensic process;
and third and most importantly - that it was wrong. The court itself
admitted that it was "not required to determine" whether the massacres
suffered by Armenians amounted to genocide...
She pointed out that the Ottoman military courts convicted the principal
perpetrators, including Talat Pasha, for the mass murders rather than
genocide because the word had not yet been invented. In her concluding
remarks, Mrs. Alamuddin-Clooney stated:
Armenia, as a third party intervening in this case, has not made submissions
on the merits and is not here to argue against freedom of expression - any
more than Turkey is here to defend it. This court knows very well how
disgraceful Turkey's record on free expression is.So although this case
involves a Turkish citizen, Armenia has every interest in ensuring that its
own citizens do not get caught in a net that criminalizes speech too
broadly. And the family of Mr. Hrant Dink know that all too well.The stakes
could not be higher for the Armenian people. The decision you are reviewing
was a serious step in the wrong direction. Perinçek and his colleagues on
the Talat Pasha Committee, the committee named after the principal
perpetrators of the Genocide and deemed by the European Parliament to be
xenophobic, have celebrated the judgment in its current terms and
triumphantly proclaimed that it has solved the 'Armenian Question' once and
for all...We hope that the Grand Chamber will set the record straight.
The IIGHRS and its Turkish coalition partners hope that the Grand Chamber of
the European Court of Human Rights indeed sets the record straight by
confirming that the case is about the speech by Perinçek with the intent of
incitement to discrimination and hatred and not a debate about historical
truth or of a legal classification of genocide.
The Grand Chamber is expected to render its judgment in approximately 6 to 8
months.
The Zoryan Institute and its subsidiary, the International Institute for
Genocide and Human Rights Studies, is the first non-profit, international
center devoted to the research and documentation of contemporary issues with
a focus on Genocide, Diaspora and Armenia.
For more information please contact the Zoryan Institute by email
[email protected] or telephone 416-250-9807.
George Shirinian, Executive Director
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON
Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807
Fax: 416-512-1736
PRESS RELEASE
CONTACT: Shannon Scully
DATE: January 28, 2015
TEL: 416-250-9807
European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber hears
Perinçek v. Switzerland case
Strasbourg, France-The European Court of Human Rights held a Grand Chamber
hearing today, Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 9.15 a.m. in Strasbourg,
France on the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland (application no. 27510/08).
The case concerns the criminal conviction of Turkish politician Doðu
Perinçek for publicly denying the Armenian Genocide while in Switzerland.
On March 9, 2007, the Lausanne Police Court had convicted Mr. Perinçek of
racial discrimination under Article 261 bis, Paragraph 4 of the Swiss
Criminal Code, finding that his motives were of a racist tendency and did
not merely contribute to a historical debate. After exhausting his appeals,
which were dismissed at various levels of the Swiss courts including the
Federal Court of Switzerland, Mr. Perinçek's appealed to the ECHR on June
10, 2008.
View the trial on the ECHR website: http://www.echr.coe.int/ by clicking on
Webcast, Perinçek v. Switzerland (no. 27510/08)
The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (IIGHRS)
(A Division of the Zoryan Institute) was represented as observers at the
Grand Chamber, by its President, Mr. K.M. Greg Sarkissian and Mr. R.
Bedrosyan, an advisor to the Zoryan Institute on Turkish-Armenian issues.
They had worked jointly with the Human Rights Association of Turkey and the
Truth Justice Memory Centre to submit a third party amicus brief, for which
this Armenian-Turkish coalition had been granted leave by the Grand Chamber.
According to Payam Akhavan, the lawyer representing a coalition of Turkish
and Armenian human rights associations:
We have emphasized that the case is not about the historical truth as such.
>From the perspective of human rights law, freedom of expression under
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is subjected to
certain limitations. One of those is when speech amounts to incitement to
discrimination and hatred. So debates about the historical truth or legal
classification of atrocities as genocide or some other label are not the
real issue. The fundamental issue is whether Perinçek's statements when
considered in their proper context constitute incitement to discrimination
and hatred.
The Applicant, Mr. Doðu Perinçek, Chairman of the Socialist Workers Party of
Turkey, with ties to the nationalist Talat Pasha Organization, stated the
following:
We are here for the freedom of expression of the people of Europe. I have
always shared the pain of our Armenian nationals...Genocide allegations have
turned into a tool to humiliate the Turks.
Mr. Perinçek had travelled to Switzerland to speak at a conference and made
public appearances wherein he referred to the Armenian Genocide as an
"international lie" and defended his position during today's hearing as
follows:
This is an imperialist lie, an international lie. It's been brought to the
fore by the Imperialist powers - they were the parties to the First World
War, they were against the Ottoman Empire which was basically why such a
propaganda was started against the Ottoman Empire.
Frank Schurmann, the lawyer representing Switzerland, stressed that
Perinçek's statements amounted to hate speech against Armenians. Mr.
Schurmann substantiated this by referring to the written submission jointly
prepared by the IIGHRS and the two Turkish NGOs which documented Perinçek's
racist and anti-Armenian activities in Turkey.
Mr. Gevorg Kostanyan, prosecutor general of Armenia and Agent representing
the government of Armenia during the proceedings, said:
As an intervener, Armenia's role is to point to the correct principles under
which this case should be decided and to indicate errors that have infected
the lower court judgment. Whether or not its conclusion was correct does not
matter, as much as certain misstatements of fact, which have comforted
genocide deniers throughout the world. We are here to ensure that such
errors should never be repeated by a court that speaks in the name of human
rights.
Mr. Geoffrey Robertson, Counsel representing the Armenian Government, began
his argument by referring to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights:
It sets up a presumption in favour of free speech, in a Convention that
protects other rights to human dignity, to live free of torture and
discrimination, to say "I am Jewish," "I am Muslim," or "I am Armenian,"
without fear that the race we happen to be born into will be stigmatised as
inferior or sub-human.
He also referred to "egregious errors" made by the Lower Chamber, which he
urged the Grand Chamber not to repeat. Mr. Robertson summed up the key issue
in the case as follows:
The issue in this case is whether the Swiss law, under which this man,
Perinçek, was convicted.conforms to the Freedom of Expression Guarantee
under Article 10 of the European Convention.Article 10 has its proviso,
which permits speech to be restrained by law on those occasions when it's
likely to and intended to, cause harm to incite racial violence or hatred.
Now, in the mouth of a rabid racist with a doctorate in law and a political
party at his back, and people waving flags and fists outside this Court now,
genocide denial can have a double impact: It makes the survivors of
genocide and their children and grandchildren feel the worthlessness and
contempt and inferiority that the initial perpetrators intended, and it
incites admiration for those perpetrators and a dangerous desire to emulate
them. In this case, the Swiss courts decided that Perinçek's intentions
were racist.that his words in the Turkish language were designed to arouse
his supporters in Turkey to hate Armenians and applaud his hero, Talat
Pasha, the Ottoman Hitler.
Mrs. Amal Alamuddin-Clooney, also representing Armenia, made her opening
statement thusly,
The most important error in the Court's judgment is that it has cast doubt
on the fact that there was a genocide against the Armenian people 100 years
ago. I will argue that a finding on genocide was first, not necessary in
this case; second, that it was reached without a proper forensic process;
and third and most importantly - that it was wrong. The court itself
admitted that it was "not required to determine" whether the massacres
suffered by Armenians amounted to genocide...
She pointed out that the Ottoman military courts convicted the principal
perpetrators, including Talat Pasha, for the mass murders rather than
genocide because the word had not yet been invented. In her concluding
remarks, Mrs. Alamuddin-Clooney stated:
Armenia, as a third party intervening in this case, has not made submissions
on the merits and is not here to argue against freedom of expression - any
more than Turkey is here to defend it. This court knows very well how
disgraceful Turkey's record on free expression is.So although this case
involves a Turkish citizen, Armenia has every interest in ensuring that its
own citizens do not get caught in a net that criminalizes speech too
broadly. And the family of Mr. Hrant Dink know that all too well.The stakes
could not be higher for the Armenian people. The decision you are reviewing
was a serious step in the wrong direction. Perinçek and his colleagues on
the Talat Pasha Committee, the committee named after the principal
perpetrators of the Genocide and deemed by the European Parliament to be
xenophobic, have celebrated the judgment in its current terms and
triumphantly proclaimed that it has solved the 'Armenian Question' once and
for all...We hope that the Grand Chamber will set the record straight.
The IIGHRS and its Turkish coalition partners hope that the Grand Chamber of
the European Court of Human Rights indeed sets the record straight by
confirming that the case is about the speech by Perinçek with the intent of
incitement to discrimination and hatred and not a debate about historical
truth or of a legal classification of genocide.
The Grand Chamber is expected to render its judgment in approximately 6 to 8
months.
The Zoryan Institute and its subsidiary, the International Institute for
Genocide and Human Rights Studies, is the first non-profit, international
center devoted to the research and documentation of contemporary issues with
a focus on Genocide, Diaspora and Armenia.
For more information please contact the Zoryan Institute by email
[email protected] or telephone 416-250-9807.