Committee of Ministers Secretariat Du Comite Des Ministres

SECRETARIAT GENERAL

SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES

Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: 03 88 41 36 45

Date: 08/03/2017 DH-DD(2017)277

Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers.

Meeting: 1280 meeting (7-9 March 2017) (DH)

Communication from Armenia (08/03/2017) concerning the case of SARGSYAN v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 40167/06) in reply to DH-DD(2017)265

Information made available under Rule 8.2a of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres.

Réunion : 1280 réunion (7-9 mars 2017) (DH)

Communication de l’Arménie (08/03/2017) dans l’affaire SARGSYAN c. Azerbaïdjan (Requête n° 40167/06) [anglais uniquement]

Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 8.2a des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMENIA BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

3/8 Vazgen Sargsyan Street, 00 I O Yerevan, Armenia Tel.: (+374 10) 59 40 16

Mrs Genevieve MAYER Head of Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Directorate of Human Rights Secretariat General Council of Europe

Srtasbourg, 8 March 2017

Dear Mrs. Mayer,

Referring to the document distributed at the request of the Azerbaijani delegation (DH­ DD(2017)265), we would like to communicate following.

The presented document cannot serve in anyway as an Action Plan for the case Sargsyan against Azerbaijan. Although we would be happy to welcome Azerbaijani commitment to implement the said judgment, but unfortunately this document consists of neither actions, nor a plan to redress violations found in the judgement. The paper lacks important components of an Action Plan as defined by the "Guide for the drafting of action plans and reports for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights", namely a description of adequate measures to implement the ruling, an indicative timetable for execution and, importantly, a conclusion of the presenting authorities containing inter alia information about envisaged next steps in the execution process.

In the paragraph 273 of the judgement Sargsyan v Azerbaijan delivered on June 16, 2016, the Court concludes 'that there has been and continues to be no available effective remedy in respect of the violation of the applicant's rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. J and under Article 8 of the Convention'. Therefore, a working group created under the Azerbaijani Cabinet of Ministers on February 24, 2014, some 18 months before the above-mentioned ruling, cannot be considered an 'easily accessible property claims mechanism', the creation of which is demanded by the judgement. Similarly, we could not find any soundly-articulated action in the description of 'General measures'. For instance, there is no assessment of the extent of the violation at hand and the need for general measures, possibly redressing similar violations inflicted upon individuals of ethnic Armenian origin, who, prior to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resided in the territory of Azerbaijan and owned property in Baku and elsewhere in Azerbaijan.

In its traditional attempt to shift the blame onto Armenia, Azerbaijan claims 'that the main responsibility in this case belongs to the Republic of Armenia,' and refers to difficulties at a practical level in exercising Azerbaijani authority in the 'area of Gulustan'. It is strange that Azerbaijan refuses to take responsibility even over the territory that is currently under its administrative control.

Anyway, the response to this allegation is in the paragraph 151 of the j udgment, where Courts finds 'that the facts out of ·which the alleged violations arise are within the 'jurisdiction" of Azerbaijan within the nzeaning of Article 1 of the Convention and are capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent Government. Consequently, il dismisses !he Government 's objection concerning lack ojjurisdicf ion and responsibility which had been joined to the ,nerits in the admissibilily decision (Sargsyan (dee.), cited above, § 76) '.

As to difficulties at a practical level, a sound measure by Azerbaijan would have been a complete secession of its ongoing hostile acts, which include deliberate killings of military personnel and civilians across the Line of Contact between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, including in the area of Gulistan. This so-far unattainable change of behavior by Azerbaijan is long-expected by the international community and voiced on numerous occasions by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries - France, Russia and the United States.

Large parts of this so called Action Plan is nothing more than a pure propaganda leaflet, containing Azerbaijan's false interpretation of the events of last April when, breaching the internationally-mediated tripartite cease-fire agreements of 1994/95, Azerbaijan launched a full -scale military aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh, which - as this Committee of Ministers has been duly informed - was accompanied by gross violations of human rights and humanitarian laws by the Azerbaijani Army. The paper distributed yesterday by Azerbaijan contains unverified numbers to create a false, diametrically­ opposite impression.

The ceasefire violations are unacceptable, especially when the they result in human losses. In this context we reiterate that agreements reached at the summits in Vienna and St. Peters burg in 2016 should be strictly observed, including the creation of an OSCE investigative mechanism in the shortest possible time. If Azerbaijan stops hindering the creation of the said investigation mechanism the side responsible for the incidents and ceasefire violations will be easily identifiable.

There is a reference in this document to other cases (Zalyan, Serobyan) which are irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue raised in the judgement Sargsyan v Azerbaijan. To say the least, violations found in these cases occurred out of the area of Gulistan.

Interestingly, the document also contains Azerbaijan's overt instructions as to what cases and when the Court should examine. This is unprecedented when a state Party tries to interfere in the Court internal proceedings. Lastly, Azerbaijan refers to its mine-clearance act1v1t1es in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area, while in Vienne it continues to block activities of the OSCE Yerevan Office precisely because of the latter's demining activities carried out in Nagorno­ Karabakh.

Concluding, we expect Azerbaijan to refrain from using the CMDH as another platform for spreading false information and to submit a real Action Plan for implementation of this judgement. .

Yours sincerelf /'

Mr Gevorg KOST ANY AN