Паст инфо

Parents of axe-murdered Armenian military officer in Hungary Gurgen Margaryan can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights against Azerbaijan and Hungary and will definitely win said an international law expert Ara Ghazaryan to Pastinfo.am reporter. He explained that Azerbaijan violated Article 2 on Right to Life, 14 on Prohibition of Discrimination of Human Rights Convention, and Hungary violated Article 2 of the same Convention.

A. Ghazaryan stated that the state has an obligation to provide an adequate punishment for torture and deprivation of the right to life cases. ECHR case law clearly says that if a person is convicted of torture, amnesty, conditional exemption and probation should be banned.

“In other words special treatment should be done against people committed such a serious crime by the public” Ghazaryan said, pointing out that in this case not a torture, but an intentional murder took place on the grounds of national discrimination. Case law, according to a lawyer, is applicable to the cases of Azerbaijan and Hungary. Neither Hungary nor Azerbaijan provided an adequate punishment, and it was a violation of the Convention by both countries.

In addition, in case of Azerbaijan 2+14 resolution works: deprivation of the right to life and prohibition of discrimination. “It is clear that the reason of Safarov’s pardon by Aliev was the fact, that G. Margaryan was Armenian” Ara Ghazaryan said noting that pardoning is really a shameful act and “probably no one after the Nazi government has ever thought to pardon a criminal on the presidential level accused in a crime based on a discrimination”.

According to an international law expert numerous provisions of the European Convention on the transfer of convicted people were violated. Convention out of humanitarian objectives allows convicts to suffer a penalty on the native land. This means that mechanisms of the Convention cannot be used as a veil and to peruse another objective, for example, pardon a criminal as in Azerbaijani case.

In particular Article 9 Paragraph 3 says that hosting country of the convict is guided by its own discretion and laws regarding determining the punishment. “Azerbaijan guided by its discretion, ignoring international norms, decided to grant a pardon, but did not abide the third condition, did not follow the laws of the country and violated them'' said the lawyer. This was announced on the next day after the extradition by Azerbaijani lawyers. According to Article 57 Point 3 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan it is illegal to grant an amnesty to imprisonment to life sentenced criminals before at least 25 years of paying the penalty.

In Azerbaijani response to the U.S. State Department’s announcement manipulation is present. It says that granting a pardon is the executive right of Azerbaijan and life imprisoned Safarov suffer 8.5 years of penalty in Hungary and act of forgiveness can be observed as replacement of life imprisonment with the penalty he had suffered.

According to A. Ghazaryan Azerbaijan did not have the right to determine the punishment suffered in the other country as a term already defined by it. “It is unaccepted in a democratic society to give pardon to for premeditated murder after 8,5 years of punishment''.

According to international law expert ECHR may mark a violation and a lot of important facts after which the judgment will enter the political field and politics is unpredictable.

''But at least with a judgment they can note that a violation has occurred and it is a way for Margaryans' parents to restoration of the rights.  In the international law the role of the European Court is limited only by recording a violation, and in some rare cases define obligation to the state, what should be done to assure the fulfillment of judgment.

Interesting and instructive are case-law cases on extradition of ECHR. Thus, in one of the cases, Turkey extradited a person to Uzbekistan, where he was tortured. ECHR recorded a violation by Turkey that according to judgment Turkey had to assess the situation not by guarantees, but by the internal situation in the country. “In other word Hungary might also be brought to charge as there were a lot of date on intolerance, that it should have known that Safarov was likely to be released''.

Ara Ghazaryan believes that the time has come to submit the intergovernmental complaint against Azerbaijan on the grounds of violating ECHR Convention Article 2, 3, 14 : Right to Life, Prohibition of Torture, Prohibition of Discrimination.

And as a response to the question who and how will response, if because of legal “error” situation in the region will escalate, Ara Ghazaryan answered that bodies of the Council of Europe must prevent it.