{"id":6488,"date":"2015-10-15T14:40:20","date_gmt":"2015-10-15T14:40:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ancnews.info\/?p=6488"},"modified":"2015-10-15T14:40:20","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T14:40:20","slug":"european-court-issues-contentious-ruling-on-perincek-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ancnews.info\/?p=6488","title":{"rendered":"[Updated] European Court Issues Contentious Ruling On Perincek Case. The European Court Decision in Perspective"},"content":{"rendered":"

(ASBAREZ) STRASBOURG, France\u2014The European Court of Human Rights<\/a> on Thursday issued a contentious ruling in the case of Perincek vs. Switzerland, which concerned the criminal conviction by Switzerland of Turkish politician Dogu Perincek for publicly challenging the existence of the Armenian Genocide.<\/p>\n

While the ruling upholds Perincek\u2019s right to freedom of speech in this narrow case, the court also upholds the \u201cright to dignity\u201d of Armenian people and maintains legality of laws criminalizing genocide denial.<\/p>\n

Armenia was represented at Thursday\u2019s hearing by human rights attorney Geoffrey Robertson and Armenia\u2019s Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan, with leaders of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy present at the court. In January<\/a>, the two were joined by Robertson\u2019s associate Amal Clooney in presenting the appeal.<\/p>\n

The ruling does correct several errors in the original judgment, by specifically stressing that \u201cit was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onward could be characterized as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law; unlike the international criminal courts, it had no authority to make legally binding pronouncements on this point.\u201d<\/p>\n

This provision strikes down the Chamber\u2019s \u201cdoubt[\u2026] that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Grand Chamber decision concerning the crucial question of the distinction between Holocaust denial and denial of the genocide of the Armenian people in 1915, is contentious. So is its assertion that in his statements, Perincek \u201chad not expressed contempt or hatred for the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Robertson was upbeat about the ruling, saying it was \u201ca good decision for Armenians<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

He highlighted three noteworthy points from the decision, the first being that Thursday\u2019s judgment reversed the lower court\u2019s ruling, which expressed doubts about the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Robertson explained that the ruling by the Grand Chamber, as it is known, affirmed that it had no right to make such a distinction.<\/p>\n

The second element that emerged from Thursday\u2019s ruling was that Armenians were protected in their assertion of the Armenian Genocide, signaling that in the future individuals could be held accountable\u2014by law\u2014for denying the Genocide if their comments are viewed as inciting hatred or xenophobia.<\/p>\n

The most significant turning point, however, according to Robertson, is that Thursday\u2019s ruling suggested that Article 301 of Turkey\u2019s Criminal Code, which stipulated punishment for \u201cinsulting Turkishness\u201d can now be deemed in direct contradiction to the ECHR ruling.<\/p>\n