Turkish Forum

Author: Harut Sassounian

  • Sassounian’s column of Oct. 7, 2010

    Sassounian’s column of Oct. 7, 2010

    Apology for Vilifying One Man,
    Yet no Apology for Killing 1.5 Million
    SASSUN 2

    In 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an Alabama-based non-profit civil rights organization, published an article titled, “State of Denial: Turkey Spends Millions to Cover Up Armenian Genocide.” It was a hard-hitting exposé of the Turkish government’s elaborate and sinister efforts to pressure U.S. politicians and entice academics to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
    According to the SPLC article, “Turkey exerts political leverage and spends millions of dollars in the United States to obfuscate the Armenian genocide…. Revisionist historians who conjure doubt about the Armenian genocide…are paid by the Turkish government.”
    Going beyond such general statements, SPLC specifically referred to Guenter Lewy as “one of the most active members of a network of American scholars, influence peddlers and website operators, financed by hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from the government of Turkey, who promote the denial of the Armenian genocide….”
    Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, had qualified the Armenian Genocide in his lectures and writings as a “bungling misrule” rather than a deliberately planned and executed mass murder. He had made similar claims in his controversial book published by the University of Utah Press in 2005: “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.”
    Shortly after publication of SPLC’s article, an $8 million defamation lawsuit was filed against the civil rights group on behalf of Prof. Lewy by attorneys David Saltzman and Bruce Fein from the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund (TALDF), which is “generously supported by the Turkish Coalition of America,” according to TALDF’s website.
    Before a jury could judge the merits of the charges in court, however, SPLC agreed to settle the case by issuing “a retraction and apology” and promising to pay an undisclosed sum to Prof. Lewy. Had SPLC not settled the case, TALDF would have had a difficult task proving in court that Prof. Lewy was actually libeled. In order to win the lawsuit, TALDF had to prove that SPLC had made those accusations “with malicious intent” and “reckless disregard for the truth.” Furthermore, TALDF lawyers would have to show that the long-retired 87-year-old professor had suffered actual financial loss, such as getting fired from his job or having a contract canceled as a direct result of the article.
    Some SPLC supporters have wondered why it chose to settle the lawsuit when its chances of losing in court were minimal. A knowledgeable source told this writer that SPLC may have settled the case in order to reduce its exposure to mounting attorney fees, combined with the likelihood that Prof. Lewy may have agreed to settle for far less than the $8 million he had originally demanded. With the lawsuit behind it, SPLC could once again dedicate itself to its actual mission of defending civil rights.
    In its retraction, SPLC stated: “We now realize that we misunderstood Prof. Lewy’s scholarship, were wrong to assert that he was part of a network financed by the Turkish Government, and were wrong to assume that any scholar who challenges the Armenian genocide narrative necessarily has been financially compromised by the Government of Turkey. We hereby retract the assertion that Prof. Lewy was or is on the Government of Turkey’s payroll…. We deeply regret our errors and offer our sincerest apologies to Professor Lewy.”
    In response to complaints from SPLC supporters opposing the settlement, however, Penny Weaver, a public affairs spokesman, stated: “Our settlement of this matter does not mean we are endorsing Mr. Lewy’s views or taking his side. But we are acknowledging that we mischaracterized his views and wrongly said that he was taking money from the Turkish government. It was an error, and we apologize for that.” The original article which precipitated the lawsuit is still posted on the SPLC’s website.
    Needless to say, no one should be defamed because of his or her views on the Armenian Genocide, no matter how wrong or offensive they are. Unless one possesses evidence to the contrary, one cannot simply assume that those making distorted statements on the Armenian Genocide are motivated by greed or are paid agents of the Turkish government.
    It is both commendable and ironic that lawyers for a Turkish interest group are eager to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the United States ostensibly to defend the civil rights of a client. In Turkey, however, anyone who dares to talk about the Armenian Genocide risks being charged for telling the truth and thrown into prison for years under the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code which bans “insulting Turkishness!”
    If TALDF were truly interested in protecting civil rights, it would allocate its considerable resources to abolish Article 301, which would considerably lessen financial support from generous donors and bring its operations to an end.

  • Who Won Akhtamar Propaganda War: Armenians or Turks?

    Who Won Akhtamar Propaganda War: Armenians or Turks?

    sassounian33
    The Turkish government failed to attract the expected crowd of thousands of worshippers from around the world to the first Mass in almost a century, held at the Holy Cross Church in Akhtamar Island, on Sept. 19. Only a few hundred Armenians showed up, mostly from Istanbul.
    Turkey failed miserably in trying to deceive world opinion into believing that it is tolerant towards Armenians. Eventually, it became obvious that Turkish leaders were more interested in putting on a political show than allowing a religious ceremony in a thousand-year old Armenian house of worship.
    I wrote a column three years ago criticizing the Turkish government for converting the Holy Cross Church into a state museum. At the time, I urged Turkish officials to 1) place a cross on the church’s dome; 2) designate it as a church rather than a museum, and allow regular celebration of Divine Liturgy; and 3) revert ownership of the church to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul instead of placing it under the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism.
    Earlier this year, the Turkish government promised to place a cross on the dome of the church and allow services to be performed there on Sept. 19. I urged Armenians not to participate, knowing that Turkish officials’ true intent was to stage a political show under the guise of religious ceremonies.
    An intense debate ensued among Armenians on whether to boycott or attend the church services. Articles exposing the Turkey’s sinister plans did little to settle the controversy. Making matters worse, the Holy See of Etchmiadzin and the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem announced plans to send representatives to the Akhtamar church, although the Catholicosate of Cilicia declined to participate.
    Finally, a lucky break! The Turkish government came to the rescue. A few weeks before the scheduled ceremony, a Turkish official announced that it would not be possible to place the promised cross atop the church, making the ridiculous excuse of “technical difficulties.”
    Prime Minister Erdogan was caught in a dilemma. Had he allowed the cross to be placed on the dome, he would have scored points with world public opinion, but would have lost crucial votes in the hotly-contested Sept. 12 referendum on constitutional reforms.
    The cross finally saved the day! The Holy See of Etchmiadzin canceled its plans to send representatives to Akhtamar. The Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem did likewise. Tour operators called off their arrangements to take large numbers of Armenian worshippers to Lake Van. As a result, Turkey lost the propaganda campaign and considerable income.
    In a last ditch effort to increase attendance, a few days before Sept. 19, Prime Minister Erdogan’s office sent invitations to the Armenia media, offering all expense paid visits to Akhtamar, including free round-trip airfare, hotel accommodations and meals. Another fifty Armenian commentators and analysts received similar invitations, all of whom refused to go because of Turkey’s refusal to install the cross.
    Inadvertently, the Turks forced most Armenians to do the right thing and cancel their visits to the Holy Cross Church. Interestingly, the Turkish government behaved similarly when it declined to ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, thereby safeguarding Armenia’s interests.
    While the Armenian public, civic groups, and some political parties opposed the Turkish plans at Akhtamar, the Armenian government remained remarkably silent. For unknown reasons, Turkey did not invite Armenian officials to the Holy Cross ceremonies. In view of the embarrassing games Ankara played with the Armenia-Turkey Protocols and the subsequent collapse of soccer diplomacy, it appears that Armenia’s leaders were not too eager to join Turks in yet another ploy.
    Regrettably, Armenians wasted far too much time and energy arguing with each other about going to Akhtamar. This distraction prevented them from organizing protests in major capitals to inform the world about the long history of Turkish atrocities, destruction of thousands of churches, and occupation of historic Armenian lands.
    However, the boycott of the ceremonies because of the missing cross caught the attention of the international media. Ironically, Turkish officials helped further undermine their own cause, by placing the cross on the ground next to the Holy Cross Church, in full view of the public and TV cameras.
    The Turkish government has now promised to place the cross atop the church in six weeks. Regardless of what Turkey decides to do with the cross, Armenians should pursue their own course of action, rather than simply react to the petty games of Turkish officials.
    At this point, the only announcement Armenians are interested in hearing from Ankara is the return of the Holy Cross Church to the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey.

  • Senate Should not Confirm Bryza As U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan

    Senate Should not Confirm Bryza As U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier

    At the request of Sen. Barbara Boxer, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had postponed from early August to mid-September its vote on Matt Bryza, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan. Senators Boxer, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez were satisfied neither with Bryza’s answers during the confirmation hearing nor subsequently with his written responses.

    Harut Sassounian

    While Congress was in recess for the past 40 days, a number of newspapers and websites questioned the appropriateness of Bryza’s nomination to such an important post. They raised several conflict of interest issues regarding Bryza and his Turkish-born wife, Zeyno Baran, who until recently was director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.

    This article shall focus on a single issue — the allegation that Bryza and Baran had received gifts during their August 23, 2007 wedding in Istanbul. If true, this would not only abort Bryza’s chances of becoming ambassador, but more importantly, it would get him into serious legal trouble. Under U.S. laws, government officials and their spouses are prohibited from receiving gifts, even wedding presents, unless these are given by close acquaintances. Such gifts have to be reported to the U.S. government, and the Internal Revenue Service. Bryza’s case is more complicated. If he got gifts that he did not report, while telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under oath that he did not receive such gifts, he could be charged with non-reporting of a gift, tax evasion, and perjury.

    Bryza’s celebrity wedding triggered a major controversy when Azeri jouranlist Adil Khalil reported in the opposition newspaper Azadlig that Haydar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Economic Development, had paid most of the couple’s wedding expenses. Babayev refuted the accusation and filed a lawsuit for libel, causing Khalil to be arrested, severely beaten, stabbed, and forced to flee to France. The newspaper’s editor, Ganimat Zahid, was also arrested on unsubstantiated charges. Last month, Azadlig suspended publication, after it was evicted from its offices by the authorities. Having exhausted all domestic court appeals, the newspaper’s editor filed a claim against Azerbaijan with the European Court of Human Rights.

    According to Azeri and Turkish media reports, around 400 prominent guests from several countries attended Bryza’s 2007 lavish wedding, held under tight security. Among the attendees from Turkey were the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, the U.S. Consul General in Istanbul, the Armenian Patriarch of Turkey, members of parliament, and major media figures. Bryza also invited Armenian officials to his wedding, including Pres. Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, neither of whom attended. At the time, Bryza was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the mediators of the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict.

    Several high-ranking Azeri officials also attended Bryza’s wedding in Istanbul: Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov who served as a wedding witness, Minister of Economic Development Haydar Babayev, Azeri National Petroleum Company President Rovnaq Abdullaev, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Valeh Aleskerov, and Azerbaijan’s Consul General in Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov. Pres. Ilham Aliyev’s letter of congratulation was read at the start of the wedding. According to documents obtained by this writer from the European Court of Human Rights, the Azeri editor claimed that Pres. Aliyev sent “a special gift to the bride.”

    Even though Bryza and Baran requested that in lieu of gifts guests make a contribution to a Turkish charity, it is common practice in the Middle East to hand gifts — particularly jewelry — to a newlywed couple. For example, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, during a meeting with Hillary Clinton in Kabul in July, told her that he would be sending a gift to the Secretary of State, on the occasion of her daughter’s wedding.

    According to the Media Rights Institute, Minister Babayev’s lawyers confirmed during a court hearing in Baku that he attended the wedding and “even had a gift” for Bryza. Yet, at his Senate confirmation hearing, Bryza refuted the allegation that an Azeri official had financed his wedding, adding that its entire cost was paid by the couple’s families.

    The allegation that Bryza received wedding gifts should be thoroughly investigated before the Senate votes on his nomination. Even though Senators and members of the Armenian, Greek, and Cypriot communities oppose Bryza for multiple reasons, the wedding expenses and gifts are the only issues that could have serious legal ramifications. Therefore, the Senate should wait for the outcome of the lawsuit filed by the Azeri editor in the European Court of Human Rights.

    Bryza should fully cooperate with such an investigation in order to clear the clouds of suspicion hanging over his head, before he is rushed to Baku. He should provide the complete list of his wedding guests and disclose all gifts received by the newlyweds and their families.

    U.S. investigators should contact everyone who attended Bryza’s wedding to verify what gifts they gave to the couple on that occasion. He should also be asked to produce a record of his wedding expenses and how they were paid.

    A few days ago, Sen. Boxer wrote a letter to this writer expressing her serious concern about Bryza’s inadequate responses to her questions both during and after the confirmation hearing. She pledged to continue her efforts “to determine if he is the appropriate representative for the United States in this highly volatile region of the world.”

    Sen. Boxer and her colleagues should either reject Bryza’s nomination outright or place a hold on it until all allegations against him are investigated and proven to be true

  • Top Three Armenian Church Leaders Boycott Turkish Show in Akhtamar

    Top Three Armenian Church Leaders Boycott Turkish Show in Akhtamar

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The Turkish scheme of luring Armenian Church leaders to participate in a religious show at Holy Cross (Sourp Khach) Church on Akhtamar Island, Lake Van, backfired last week.

    The heads of three Hierarchical Sees of the Armenian Church — in Armenia, Lebanon, and Jerusalem — will neither attend nor send representatives to the celebration of Divine Liturgy at Holy Cross Church on September 19. All three turned down the invitation of Archbishop Aram Ateshyan, Deputy Patriarch of the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey.

    Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia, headquartered in Antelias, Lebanon, was the first to announce that he would boycott the Sept. 19 ceremonies. In this regard, the Catholicosate announced: “In an attempt to convince the European Union and UNESCO that Turkey safeguards the cultural heritage of its occupied lands, the Turkish government restored the Holy Cross Armenian Church, but instead of keeping it as a church, transformed it into a museum.” It described the ceremonies orchestrated by Turkey as “an attempt to obscure its consistent policy of denying the Armenian Genocide and the rights of its survivors.”

    The Holy See of Etchmiadzin, on the other hand, had initially announced that it would send to Akhtamar two high-ranking clergymen. In an earlier column, this writer had expressed the wish that Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, would reconsider his decision. Last week, after the Turkish government broke its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church, the Catholicos, as expected, withdrew Etchmiadzin’s participation from the Sept. 19 ceremonies.

    The third Hierarchical See, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, had initially decided to dispatch to Akhtamar Archbishop Aris Shirvanian, Director of Ecumenical and Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Patriarchate’s Holy Synod. When questioned about his planned attendance, Archbishop Shirvanian told this writer on Sept. 5 that in line with the decision of Holy Etchmiadzin, he would not participate in the church service, because of Turkey’s refusal to install a cross on the dome of the Holy Cross Church.

    All three church leaders now have a unified position on this issue. They are to be commended for their decision not to support a political show sponsored by the Turkish regime, under the guise of a religious ceremony!

    Regrettably, the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey, the fourth Hierarchical See of the Armenian Church, is still planning to participate in the Sept. 19 show, despite the fact that the Turkish government lied to Deputy Patriarch Aram Ateshyan, and refused to restore the promised cross on the church’s dome. The Governor of Van made the ridiculous claim that the Turkish state did not have the technical means to lift the 400 lb. cross to the top of the church. All those who bought airline tickets and booked hotel rooms, misled by Turkey’s false promises, should promptly cancel their trip, demand a refund and an apology from Turkish authorities for their deceptive bait and switch tactics!

    Even though Archbishop Ateshyan is a hostage of the Turkish regime and therefore does not have the freedom to take independent decisions, he risks losing all credibility with Armenians worldwide and all three Hierarchical Sees, should he go ahead and celebrate Mass in what Turkish officials describe as the “Akdamar Memorial Museum!” He should threaten not to show up at the Holy Cross Church on Sept. 19, unless Ankara installs the promised cross. Turkish officials would have to take his threat seriously, because without him there would be no religious ceremony. His absence would turn Turkey’s expected propaganda coup into a public relations nightmare!

    The last important actor in the Sept. 19 “extravaganza” is the Armenian government. While large segments of the public in Armenia have reacted strongly against Ankara’s once a year church service in the Holy Cross “museum,” little has been heard from Yerevan officials on this subject. Last month, the Armenian Foreign Ministry announced that it has not received an official invitation from Turkey. It is generally assumed that Armenian officials would refuse to participate in such a scandalous show, particularly after Ankara tricked Armenia’s leaders into signing the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, without any intention to ratify them.

    Just as the Turkish government inadvertently protected Armenia’s interests by refusing to ratify the Protocols, this time around, Ankara is causing Armenians to refrain from participating in this charade by breaking its promise to place a cross atop the Holy Cross Church!

  • Congress Should Investigate State Dept. For Holding Back Aid to Artsakh

    Congress Should Investigate State Dept. For Holding Back Aid to Artsakh

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian3
    The State Department has acted negligently and possibly in contempt of Congress by withholding assistance that it had expressly allocated to Nagorno Karabagh (Artsakh) during the past 12 years.
    The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) revealed last week that the State Department only spent about half of the amount allocated by Congress to Artsakh. From 1998 to 2010, Congress appropriated to Artsakh $61 million, not including an additional amount estimated at $10 million, allocated during 2000-2002. U.S. government documents obtained by ANCA reveal that the State Dept. spent only $36 million on humanitarian aid to Artsakh in those dozen years.
    Successive Democratic and Republican administrations have attempted to block congressional efforts to provide aid to Artsakh, in order to appease Azerbaijan. Failing to prevent approval of such allocations, the State Dept. devised a clever ploy to obstruct the will of Congress — it spent only a portion of the funds intended for Artsakh. Azerbaijan had been insisting that any U.S. assistance to Artsakh be channeled through Baku. Despite objections from the administration and Azerbaijan, Congress has continued to allocate aid to Artsakh, and made it less restrictive; its 2010 allocation of $8 million is earmarked for “programs and activities in Nagorno Karabagh,” not exclusively for humanitarian projects.
    Throughout these dozen years, neither Armenia nor Artsakh, and apparently no one from the Armenian American community has complained to Congress about the State Dept.’s refusal to spend fully the allocated funds. Amazingly, after this shortfall was revealed by ANCA, a senior Artsakh official downplayed the failure to deliver the allocated aid. According to Radio Free Europe, Vahram Atanesian, Chairman of the Artsakh parliament’s foreign relations committee, excused the withholding of the aid by attributing it to Artsakh’s robust economic growth!
    While Armenians remained surprisingly quiet, Congress, starting in 2001, repeatedly urged the administration “to release, without further delay, the remainder of the $20 million in humanitarian assistance initially provided in the fiscal year 1998 Act.” Furthermore, the House of Representatives asked the Secretary of State to report back the amount of assistance provided by the United States to Artsakh within 15 days of the enactment of the aid bill. In 2004 and 2005, the Senate demanded that USAID present its plans for the disbursement of the allocated funds within 60 days after the enactment of the aid bill. Unfortunately, the Obama administration bears the lion’s share of the blame. During its first two years in office, it has held back $12 million or one-third of the funds not spent on Artsakh since 1998.
    Sen. Barbara Boxer had the opportunity to pursue this issue with Matthew Bryza, nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan, during his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee on July 22. She wanted to know why only $4 million was spent out of the $16 million allocated for Artsakh in the past two years. In response to Bryza’s evasive answer, Sen. Boxer asked him to provide in writing “a detailed accounting on the disbursement of all U.S. assistance to Nagorno Karabagh for the past five years.” She pointedly inquired: “Why weren’t the full amounts allocated by Congress for Nagorno Karabagh in 2009 and 2010 spent?” Bryza, once again, did not provide an adequate response to the Senator’s questions.
    Consequently, Sen. Boxer asked the Foreign Relations Committee to postpone voting on Bryza’s confirmation, until the Senate returns from recess around mid-September. This would hopefully give Bryza the opportunity to prepare an honest accounting of why the aid from Washington did not fully reach Artsakh. The delay in his confirmation would also allow the Senate to check more thoroughly the issues raised regarding his background.
    Clearly, Bryza and his predecessors at the State Department had resorted to various tricks to frustrate the intent of Congress. They attempted to appease Azerbaijan by limiting and delaying the aid desperately needed in Artsakh.
    Armenian-Americans should now ask Congress to investigate the State Department’s failure to comply with the legislature’s mandate, by under-spending $35 million of the allocation to Artsakh, during the past 12 years.
    Should the investigation uncover misconduct by State Dept. officials, Armenian-Americans should then ask Congress to make a one-time allocation of $35 million to Artsakh, in compensation for the amount the U.S. government failed to spend, as required by law.
    The uproar caused by such a congressional investigation would hopefully make State Dept. officials more cautious in the future when handling the disbursement of funds intended for Artsakh!

  • Complaint against Azerbaijan in European Court Could Have Grave Consequences

    Complaint against Azerbaijan in European Court Could Have Grave Consequences

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    sassounian33
    In recent years, Armenian-Americans have filed several lawsuits in U.S. courts against insurance companies, banks, and the Republic of Turkey, seeking compensation for losses stemming from the Genocide of 1915.
    For the first time, on September 15, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will hold a hearing on a complaint filed by an Armenian family against the Republic of Azerbaijan for damages suffered during the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict. Remarkably, the ECHR will consider on the same day a similar complaint brought by several Azeris against the Republic of Armenia (Chiragov and others vs. Armenia).
    Minas Sargsyan, a former resident of Gulistan in the Shahumyan region, north of Artsakh, filed a complaint on August 11, 2006, regarding the destruction of his house and eviction from his property. Sargsyan stated in his complaint that someone else, presumably an Azeri, is now living in his house. Although Sargsyan passed away a year ago, his widow and two children are continuing to pursue the case. Due to a backlog, the ECHR normally takes several years before it hears a case. The Sargsyan family is represented before the Court by attorneys Narine Gasparyan and Knarik Ohanyan of Yerevan (members of the Legal Guide NGO), and well known human rights lawyer Prof. Philip Leach representing the European Human Rights Advocacy Center in London.
    The Shahumyan region is situated on the northern border of the former Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Oblast, as it was known in Soviet times. More than 80% of Shahumyan was inhabited by Armenians prior to the Artsakh conflict. In June 1992, when the Azerbaijani forces bombed Gulistan, Sargsyans’ two-storey house was destroyed. As a result, the entire population of the village fled fearing for their lives, according to the “Statement of Facts,” summarized by the ECHR.
    Sargsyan’s complaint is based on the following claims:
    1. The destruction of his house and eviction from his property constituted “a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”
    2. Infringement on his right to a private and family life and to his home because of his forced displacement and Azerbaijan’s continuing refusal to allow him access to his home and belongings.
    3. In view of the demolition or vandalism of several Armenian cemeteries in Azerbaijan, Sargsyan stated that he was unaware of the condition of the cemetery of his close relatives and that he was deprived of the possibility of visiting their graves, which he had done regularly in the past. The mere fact of knowing that the graves of his relatives were under the risk of being destroyed caused Sargsyan severe suffering and distress. The inability to visit the cemetery deprived him of spiritual communication with his deceased relatives, as visiting and maintaining his relatives’ graves was a religious duty that he fulfilled before his eviction.
    4. There are no effective remedies available to ethnic Armenians who were forced to leave their homes in Azerbaijan. Armenians who had sought to lodge complaints with relevant Azerbaijani authorities were unable to obtain any redress for the violation of their rights. Due to the unresolved status of the Artsakh conflict, there were practical difficulties and obstacles for gaining direct access to any remedies available in Azerbaijan.
    5. Sargsyan complained that he had been subjected to discrimination in Azerbaijan, based on his ethnic and religious affiliation. He submitted that only ethnic Armenians living in Azerbaijan had been targets of violence, pogroms, and attacks. The Government of Azerbaijan failed to investigate violence against Armenians and to provide redress for the illegal occupation of their properties and the destruction of Armenian cemeteries.
    This is the first Armenian complaint lodged with the ECHR for violations of property rights, among others, by the Republic of Azerbaijan. If successful, it will set an important precedent for claims by hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were forced to abandon their properties in Baku and other parts of Azerbaijan. Similarly, the Chiragov complaint lodged against Armenia could open the door for demands by hundreds of thousands of Azeris who left their homes during the Artsakh conflict. In contrast to the Armenian case, however, most Azeris left at their own free will and sold their properties prior to their departure.
    It cannot be a mere coincidence that the Armenian and Azeri complaints are set to be heard by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR on the same day. If the Court finds a violation of property rights in these two cases, and orders monetary compensation to the applicants, this would likely lead to many similar cases being filed in the future, which could have far-reaching consequences for the economies of Armenia and Azerbaijan, amounting to billions of dollars. Alternatively, the Court could mandate that both countries allow their respective citizens to return to their former homes, which could create new upheavals and security risks in the region. As members of the Council of Europe, Armenia and Azerbaijan are obligated to comply with the decision of the Court.
    Both hearings could be followed live on September 15, on the Court’s website: www.echr.coe.int/echr. The Azeri complaint will be broadcast at 9:15 a.m., while the Armenian one is set for 2:30 p.m. (French time).