TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR3 (Government): The regulation which the applicant claims to be applicable indeed is not applicable, cannot be applied in order to prove the property rights.
GR3 (Government): And their established practice which they claim to have does not correspond to the established practice of that time.
GR3 (Government): The village council never ever had authority to adopt a decision on the allocation of lands adjoining the house at all.
GR3 (Government): And the charter of the village council which suddenly appeared by the applicant is in our understanding not existing.
GR3 (Government): Despite strenuous efforts, we have been unable to locate this charter.
GR3 (Government): Indeed, the newly submitted law relied on by the applicant is unsourced.
GR3 (Government): In this context, we do not understand why the applicant has not explained in previous submissions in which he relied on the USSR constitution 1977 and now he seeks to rely on this unsourced law.
GR3 (Government): Also, this argument shows that the main reasons of the claim are unfounded.
GR3 (Government): The technical passport is deficient, as I said before.
GR3 (Government): It does not constitute secondary evidence.
GR3 (Government): We have the main argument in our view is the wrong stamp of the Shahumyan district and not of the Goran Boy district.
GR3 (Government): You know that the name has been changed and the authorities knew that the district structure has been changed.
GR3 (Government): And the passport shows, would have had to show in order to be valid, the technical passport that it should have been issued by the Goran Boy district of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is not the case.
GR3 (Government): And to issue such a technical passport during riots in 1991 in which, as we know, there was a very dangerous situation in the region is also quite incredible.
GR3 (Government): Let me switch to Article 8.
GR3 (Government): The government is stating again that in the situation of danger, it is impossible to have access to the ceasefire zone and all those arguments developed by Professor Shaw are governing also your analysis concerning Article 8.
GR3 (Government): The persisting link with the property concerned, which is necessary for a claim, if a claim of a right to home is done, also hinders the analysis of the violation of Article 8 is given.
GR3 (Government): Article 14, we have to refer again that the legal practice shown in Azerbaijan do not show any discriminatory effect.
GR3 (Government): Let me come to an end, Mr. President.
GR3 (Government): The policy of Azerbaijan in questions of internally displaced persons has been and is always in favor of repatriation of IDPs.
GR3 (Government): Azerbaijan does it on the level of the United Nations General Assembly.
GR3 (Government): Azerbaijan is encouraging to believe also in the society that all displaced people will be able to return one day to their homes.
GR3 (Government): The Armenian society, just the opposite, is encouraged to believe that the return of Azerbaijani people will never ever happen.
GR3 (Government): Azerbaijan has never rejected the issue of the return of refugees and the restoration of their rights, including property rights.
GR3 (Government): For instance, the two resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the Georgian conflict, in these resolutions, Azerbaijan voted for the recognition of the right to return of displaced people, while Armenia voted against it.
GR3 (Government): And regarding the Madrid Principles, I refer to what has been said by my colleague Professor Shaw, Azerbaijan fully supports one of the basic principles, namely the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence.
GR3 (Government): Honorable members of the Court, the present case tackles very serious and important general questions of the application of the Convention.
GR3 (Government): It differs in one main thing of all the other cases of the Court with regard to displaced persons in one decisive point.
GR3 (Government): This is a case at the line of contact in which there is no access given due to mines and the danger of military attacks, and unfortunately the power of this Court, the human rights, do not work out in a situation of military danger.
GR3 (Government): There is no effective remedy and no effective control in such a situation.
GR3 (Government): We would love that it is different, but this is the border of human rights protection in such a situation.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Dr. Lansky.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I give the floor to the government of Armenia.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Kostanyan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Thank you.
TP1 (ThirdParty): it's an honor to appear before the court on behalf of the government of Republic of Armenia.
TP1 (ThirdParty): My government was invited to address three questions during the oral pleadings concerning violations of applicant rights under Article I of Protocol No.
TP1 (ThirdParty): 1, Article VIII, 13, and 14 of the convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In addition, in our oral pleadings, we will also address those objections as to jurisdiction and responsibility of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the objections as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which the court has joined to the merits in its admissibility decision.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mr. President, I will start my submission
TP1 (ThirdParty): with the question on the violation of Article I of Protocol 1 and Article VIII of the convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia fully agree with the applicant that there was a violation of Article I of Protocol 1 and Article VIII.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The situation on the ground is unchanged since 1992, when the Azeri armed forces attacked the village and forced the ethnic Armenian population to flee.
TP1 (ThirdParty): As it was previously submitted by the Armenian government, Gyulistan is under the full control of Republic of Azerbaijan, and therefore it falls under the control of Azerbaijan within the meaning of Article I of the convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The evidence provided by the applicant before the court confirms that the applicant lived in Gyulistan with his family in the house owned by him, having in his possession land and other property, the fact which is substantiated by the technical passport, a proper document issued to the applicant.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The technical passport provides detailed plan of the house and provides specifications about the land and is duly signed and stamped, which mean that respondent arguments in contrary are not substantiated.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The applicant also produced evidence confirming that the family of Sargsyan made active use their property and land, worked in the village, had deposits in the local banks and earned their income mainly from farming.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In his decision on admissibility, the court has not disputed the fact that the applicant had no access to his home in Gyulistan since he and his family were forced to flee from the village.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In addition, I assert that because of this continuing denial of access to his native village, the applicant was unable to take care of his relatives' graveyards and was unaware of the status of those graveyards.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia recalls its previous submissions about the massive destruction of Armenian graves and historical sites.
TP1 (ThirdParty): We rely on overwhelming evidence provided by international organizations, such as the European Union, which prove that Armenian historical sites and cemeteries are being damaged, destroyed, and subjected to vandalism in Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The most vivid example is destruction of Armenian medieval necropolis of Juha in 2005.
TP1 (ThirdParty): These acts of vandalism were condemned by the European Union and were referred by different international and regional organizations.
TP1 (ThirdParty): During the course of examination of this case before the court, the respondent government did not provide any evidence proving that the cemeteries of Gulistan are standing and that the graveyards of the relatives of the applicant are not damaged or vandalized.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It is therefore still uncertain whether or not the graveyards of the relatives of our applicants are not damaged or destroyed.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mr. President, I conclude that the respondent government
TP1 (ThirdParty): failed to comply with its positive obligation to secure applicants' rights, and continuing the denial of the applicant's return to his home and property or providing redress and restitution violates the applicant's rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I now move on presenting questions concerning the jurisdiction and responsibility of respondent government.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia and the applicant in their written submissions provide a number of evidence, including a statement taken on 11 August 2010 from the Ankara military officer, which also includes a map of Gulistan with explanations, photos of Gulistan taken from the military points of Ankara, which are located 700 to 1,000 meters from the village of Gulistan, as well as video recording of Gulistan taken by the Ankara army officer and submitted by the government of Armenia.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Confirms that the gorge through which the river of Inja-Achai is flowing divides the armed forces of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and armed forces of Azerbaijan in the area of Gulistan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The village of Gulistan is situated on the north river side of Inja-Achai, which is under the control of armed forces of Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): If the provided evidence is not enough for the court to reach a decision, it is the Armenian government position that the court should consider a fact-finding mission in the village of Gulistan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I invite the respondent government to make an official declaration that they will provide to the court all possible assistance and cooperation in accordance with rule A2 to conduct investigative measures.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Concerning the Ankara, of course, Armenia cannot guarantee anything on Ankara's behalf.
TP1 (ThirdParty): However, I would like to submit that Ankara courts for a long time already are directly applying European Convention of Human Rights.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And as Armenian government has already submitted evidence in Chiragov case, Ankara courts refer to the court case law and base their decision where applicable on the ECHR case law.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Moreover, I would like to inform the court that despite the fact that Ankara has not yet been recognized as an independent state, its authorities are now in the process of unilaterally ratifying the European Convention of Human Rights.
TP1 (ThirdParty): And they will officially declare that they are bound by the European Convention like they did years ago with the Geneva Conventions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Alternatively, it is my government's position that the court may also invite a specialized impartial organization to conduct a fact-finding mission for the court and collect information the court needs for reaching a decision.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The court has already done this by inviting geospatial technologies and human rights project to conduct a research for the court.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This report shed a light on many contradictory submissions of government of Azerbaijan in which the respondent tried to deny the fact of its full control and jurisdiction over Gulistan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In this regard, my government also would like to refer to the report produced by geospatial technologies and human rights project.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I quote, the image analysis enabled detailed documentation of the significant and increasing military presence in the area, including trains, revetments, military buildings, military vehicles, and the presence of vehicles, trucks, and roads through the area in the period of 2005 to 2009.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This period of military buildup was followed over the period of 2009 to 2012 by continued military development in the region, but of a different type.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In that, revetments and trenches fell into disuse while military buildings and vehicles presence continued to increase.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Moreover, I think it should be decisive for the court that by its letter dated 4 December 2013, the respondent state objected to the disclosure of some images in the report.
TP1 (ThirdParty): By doing this, the government of Azerbaijan in fact admitted that the military positions, trains, military buildings belong to Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): I quote, in this context, we have objections to the disclosure of the satellite image provided in figures 6 to 11, 13, and 14, since they indicate precise information as to the military objects of our armed forces of Republic of Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): End of the quote.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mr. President, I would like to stress
TP1 (ThirdParty): that the government of Armenia did not ask the court not to disclose any part of the mentioned report, since no military objects of the armed forces of Armenia or Ankara are located in the village of Gulistan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Even based on the above, it is undoubted that the village of Gulistan is under the full, effective, and overall control of Republic of Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mr. President, I now move to addressing
TP1 (ThirdParty): the issue of existence of effective remedy, which this court, by its admissibility decision on 14 December 2011, joined to the merits.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia fully supports the submissions made by the applicant concerning the absence of effective remedies in the meaning of Article 13 of the convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia also submits that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable to the present case in the view of existence of an administrative practice in Azerbaijan to prevent the forcibly expelled Armenians, as well as any other person of Armenian origin, from visiting or returning to Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Now let me address the last question on violation of Article 14 of the convention, taken into conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 or Article 8 of the convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia insists that the right of the applicant protected under Article 14 of the convention has been violated by the respondent state, as he has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of his ethnic and religious affiliation, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The question of violation of Article 14, rights of the applicant, should be considered in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, de facto situation which resulted in killings of ethnic Armenians and displaced of hundreds of thousands Armenians from Azerbaijan.
TP1 (ThirdParty): It is submitted that only ethnic Armenians were subjected to forced displacement from their homes in Azerbaijan, and such a difference of treatment is discriminatory and has no objective and reasonable justification.
TP1 (ThirdParty): We further state that the applicant is denied his right to return by the government of Azerbaijan and submit that this denial is related to ethnic origin of the applicant.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Government of Azerbaijan continues applying his discriminatory policy over ethnic Armenians after the ratification of European Convention.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Azerbaijan, among other barriers, hinders the return of the applicant to his home in Yulistan and enjoying his possessions.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The most recent appalling evidence of discriminatory policy over Armenians is the pardon, glorification, and the release of Azerbaijani citizen, axe murderer, Ramil Safarov, who was convicted in Budapest for life sentence for killing of Gurgen Markarian, asleep, and attempted murder of another ethnic Armenian officer.
TP1 (ThirdParty): In 2012, Azerbaijan government acknowledged and endorsed the crimes of Safarov, which was clearly caused by and founded on ethnic hatred towards Armenians.
TP1 (ThirdParty): This act of the Azerbaijan government was widely criticized by the international community.
TP1 (ThirdParty): The government of Armenia concludes that the applicant has been subjected to direct discrimination by the respondent government on the grounds of his national origin.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Therefore, his right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with the Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article 8 of the Convention were violated.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Kostanyan.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Questions from the judges? Judge Luis López Guerra.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Thank you. My question is mostly to the representatives of the Azerbaijani government.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): It seems to be from the statement that it's relevant in this case, the context, the geographical context, taking into account that Gulistan or the property of the applicants seems to be in or near the euphemistically called line of contact, maybe should be called front line. Well, apart from all the general disasters
Luis López Guerra (Judge): deriving from a conflict such as the existence of refugees or dispel or spell persons, seems to me that there are specific damages for property, personal or real property, deriving from this situation in the front line or line of contact. Specific damages
Luis López Guerra (Judge): different from general expulsion of persons or displaced persons. Now my question is,
Luis López Guerra (Judge): is there in Azerbaijan some specific normative or regulation concerning this particular and specific damages resulted from direct military action or violent action in the line of contact or the front line? I mean, is there any specific provision in the legal order in this aspect?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): The applicant did not address the main argument of the respondent government regarding jurisdiction.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): The respondent government say that they prohibited access of civilians to this particular area because it is dangerous.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): And they gave an order which is secret with that purpose of avoiding civilians in that particularly dangerous area.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It would be, in their view, unreasonable to request the respondent state to permit access to and circulation of civilians on the line of contact, on the ceasefire line.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I would like to hear the position of the applicant on this specific argument, having in account Article 57 of the 1977 Geneva Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which relate to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): And there, you find that there is a legal obligation, an international obligation of states regarding victims of international armed conflicts.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): And specifically, states have the duty to provide for all reasonable precautions to avoid any losses of civilian lives.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): My question is, the legitimacy of this order of the respondent government is, yes or no, grounded on international humanitarian law and the law of war.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Judge Gyulumyan.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): Thank you, President.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I have two questions to the respondent government.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): My first question is somehow continues the question which Judge Albuquerque has already put.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): My question is, you stated that it is for the security reasons that applicants didn't allow to return back.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I know very well the area.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): There are many other villages which are with the same distance from the contact line, which are on the border, but populated by Azeris.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): How is it that you can guarantee the safety of one group of people and not the others?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): This is my first question.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And my second question concerns your oral submissions about the Armenian government's refusal for the return of refugees.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): You have stated that Azerbaijan voted for the return of refugees in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): What was the resolution which you have mentioned?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): Did you mean the resolution against which voted also all member states of the Security Council and the states which are in the Minsk Group?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): If it is so, was it the only point in that resolution?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And Mr. President, I have also one factual question
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): concerning the Azerbaijani government's statements about the 20% of their territories which are under the control of the Armenian forces.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I would like to have more precise figures.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): What is the territory of Azerbaijan?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And what is the territory which you mean that under the control of the Armenian forces?
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I went to different sources and I found that the territory of Azerbaijan for the moment is 86,600 square kilometers.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh is 4,388 at the time when it was in the Soviet Union.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): And now it is 11,458.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): I would like to know whether 11,458 square meters is 20% of 86,000 square kilometers.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): This will be my question and I hope I will get answer to my questions unlike in the previous hearing when I didn't get any answer to my questions.
Alvina Gyulumyan (Judge): Thank you.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. May I ask the respondent government to put the three maps on display,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): maybe on the floor in front of the court, to enable the councils for the applicant and the delegation of the Armenian government to have a look at them during the break we will have.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And we will have a 20-minute break and we will resume at 11 o'clock.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Leach.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, thank you.
AP3 (Applicant): The government says that there are no Azerbaijani forces in the village.
AP3 (Applicant): We submit that's not what the evidence shows.
AP3 (Applicant): Firstly, the statement from the Nagorno-Karabakh officer, Major Manukian, in 2010, very clearly says that there are four or five visible military positions and base stations in the village.
AP3 (Applicant): And there are similar statements from other Nagorno-Karabakh officers submitted by the intervening government.
AP3 (Applicant): The satellite report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science also confirms the existence of trenches and revetments in Gulistan village itself.
AP3 (Applicant): And the image that we saw today again confirmed that.
AP3 (Applicant): These are Azerbaijani positions.
AP3 (Applicant): On this point, I also come back to the question of the reliability or otherwise of their evidence.
AP3 (Applicant): And I do think this is important.
AP3 (Applicant): The best evidence that they have come up with in relation to this, I think, is very unreliable.
AP3 (Applicant): I referred to the two statements of Lieutenant Colonel Abasov and Huseynov from 15th of March, 2012.
AP3 (Applicant): If you look again at those, there are large passages of those two statements that are virtually identical.
AP3 (Applicant): If you look at three other statements from military officers taken on the same day, there are two quite critical sentences in those statements that are identical.
AP3 (Applicant): They refer to most of the buildings being destroyed.
AP3 (Applicant): Those sentences are identical.
AP3 (Applicant): The statements you've had from the villagers, also the nearby villagers, they are formulaic statements that deal with the same issues very, very briefly.
AP3 (Applicant): They are not proper witness statements.