Your trusted source

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling  on case of Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary is extremely important for Armenia, lawyer Siranush Sahakyan,  representing the legal successors of Gurgen Margaryan told a press conference on Tuesday.

“After 16 years of consistent struggle, we restored the justice,” Sahakyan said, recalling the murder case that took place in 2004 and the subsequent life sentence ruling by the Hungarian court. Sahakyan reminded that Safarov was supposed to be eligible for parole in 30 years according to the ruling of the Hungarian court.

“What we saw in reality is that Safarov was set free after active works between the authorities of Azerbaijan and Hungary in order and was supposed to serve the sentence imposed on him in motherland. However, right after the extradition, he was pardoned and glorified,  promoted and awarded benefits,” Sahakyan said, adding Safarov is free to date.

The lawyer noted that the ECHR judgement clearly recorded that the responsibility of human right protection was put on Azerbaijan as well. “The main achievement is that Azerbaijan will be held responsible. Not the murderer but the state of Azerbaijan is the addressee of all the future actions and measures.”

Sahakyan next pointed to the fact that the ECHR recorded that a violation of the right to life had taken place and that Azerbaijan practiced discriminatory policies in respect of Armenians.

“This is the first ever ruling by an international tribunal that clearly recognized the anti-Armenian discriminatory policy and hatred exercised by Azerbaijan. The legal consequences of the judgment imply elimination of discrimination by Azerbaijan against Armenians, among other things” Sahakyan said.

“Our struggle was of legal and moral nature. I want to thank the relatives of Gurgen Margaryan, Hayk Mukuchyan, who could put aside their grief and stand by us in restoring the justice at the state level. This became possible only thanks to individuals,” Sahakyan said, reminding the family of the victim had not asked for material compensation for the damage suffered.