"PERINCEK AGAINST SWITZERLAND"

"We are here in the name of the freedom of a European. Freedom of expression is the right to express one's opinion in relation to long-established ideas. For centuries the great European thinkers Giordano Bruno, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and others were persecuted for speaking out against commonly accepted dogma, and some of them paid for this with their lives. But history has proved they were right." These words are from a speech by Dogu Perincek, the leader of the Turkish Workers Party, which he gave at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg on 28 January at a session in the case "Dogu Perincek against Switzerland". The case has been heard with adjournments for nearly ten years.

In 2005, Dogu Perincek, together with the late leader of the unrecognized republic of Northern Cyprus, Rauf Denktas, took part in several conferences in Switzerland, and during one of his speeches he described the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as "an imperialist lie". After this, the Switzerland-Armenia Association took the Turkish politician to court. In 2007 a court in Lausanne found Perincek guilty of racial discrimination, but he appealed against the verdict in the European Court of Human Rights in 2008, accusing Switzerland of violating freedom of speech. On 17 December 2013, the ECHR upheld his appeal. For its part, in 2014 Switzerland lodged an appeal against this verdict.

And so, on 28 January this year, the whole of Europe's attention was focused on the trial, which was vital from the point of view of the protection of the basic right of free expression of will and for the establishment of historical justice.

The Turkish side, now in the position of defendant, was represented in court by Perincek himself and his lawyers Mehmet Cengiz and Christian Laurent Pech, the Swiss by lawyers Daniel Thurer and Frank Schurmann and the Armenian litigants by lawyers Gevorg Konstanyan, Geoffrey Robertson and Amal A. Clooney.

In his address for the defence, Perincek noted that the ECHR decision of 17 December 2013, which upheld his case, represents and guarantees European values of freedom of speech, and he anticipates a repetition of this decision.

"The states that participated in the First World War, and their peoples, may have certain prejudices against one another. But we need to make sure we rid ourselves from these negative prejudices for the future of our peoples. The consciousness of the European peoples must not be filled with prohibitions on discussing historic events," Perincek said.

The lawyer from the Armenian side, G. Robertson, accused Perincek of violating Swiss laws by his statements instead of taking part in historical debates. Ending his speech with the slogan that has become fashionable since the terrorist act in Paris - "We are Charlie Hebdo!" - the British lawyer took up a retort by Turkey's former minister for European integration, Egemen Bagis, that "If there's a Charlie Hebdo here, it is Dogu Perincek".

Addressing the Swiss lawyers, the judge in turn asked: "Based on what evidence do you claim that genocide was committed?" He later drew the attention of the members of the bar council to the fact that the Armenian and Swiss representatives were exceeding the limits of the trial because their defence is based on the claim that genocide was committed. This rebuke demonstrates the vulnerability of the position of those who support the so-called Armenian genocide theory.

The main hero of this trial, Dogu Perincek, is also confident of the weakness of the positions of the opposing side. "It will be several months before the verdict of the court is announced, but one may say with confidence that the trial has gone very well, and it is not just we, but observers from different countries who are saying this. The Turkish side has put its case in a very balanced, serious and pragmatic way, without showing any emotion or undue sensitivity. All our speeches have been within the framework of the law and - most importantly - within the framework of this trial. The other side - that is, Switzerland and especially Armenia - has expressed its position in an emotional way, at times inappropriately, to which the lawyers reacted negatively. They tried to reinforce their arguments by describing some kind of dark episodes from history. From the confines of the trial, we, for our part, did not wish to bring up historical facts and the admissions of Armenian state figures which actually prove the soundness of our position. But our main task in this trial was to prove that the denial of the 'Armenian genocide' is the right of any free person," Perincek said in a conversation with R+.

Even the lawyer on the opposing side, Frank Schurmann, who was representing Switzerland at the trial, could not fail to agree with him. "Perincek's speech was basically an objective one. I believe that in the main he expressed legitimate observations. If his position is made a subject-matter of criminal law, without doubt it will mean interference in freedom of expression of thought," the lawyer said in an interview for the Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger.

Similar level-headed actions by the Turkish side could be seen beyond the walls of the courtroom. Representatives of the Turkish and Azerbaijani diasporas in Europe who are numbered in their thousands demonstrated solidarity. In a disciplined and organized way, the demonstrators expressed their support for Perincek and his associates. On the opposite side of the street stood a group of 30 Armenian students who, shouting nationalist and at times abusive slogans, set out to provoke the Turks and representatives of the Turkish diaspora. The chairman of the European Court of Human Rights, Dean Spielmann, also spoke about this during a press conference on 1 February: "I have been informed about what has happened outside the courtroom. The demonstration ended without any incidents. The Turks acted within the law." For their part, representatives of the Strasbourg police, after telephoning the Turkish organizers of the demonstration, thanked them for their restraint and for ignoring the provocations of the Armenian students. 

It is worth making a point about the demonstration. Thousands of people of different ages, ideologies and party affiliation gathered from various countries to support the Turks. They were concerned about the possibility of the verdict going against Perincek, and France in particular, in the homeland of the struggle for basic civil rights and freedoms.

They expressed their anger dispassionately, in the true European manner. But in their restraint the demonstrators also showed strength. It was very significant that there were dozens of Azerbaijani flags, along with the flags of Turkey, in the demonstration of support for Perincek and his associates. Azerbaijan has supported the Turks at all levels in this case, which was noted by Perincek himself. "I would like to thank the Azerbaijani people and the authorities of the fraternal country. During the whole trial, and particularly these past few days, we have felt the support of our Azerbaijani brothers," Perincek said during his interview with R+. And there is every reason for this.

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said on more than one occasion that "Turkey and Azerbaijan will oppose the lies about the genocide of the Armenians together." And the day before the trial and the protest action the media was issued with an official statement by the head of a department at the Azerbaijani president's administration, Fuad Axundov [Akhundov].

"In response to the Armenians' accusations of genocide, the Turkish government opened up its archives to anyone who wanted to know the truth about the events of 1915. But the Armenians are not following suit, continuing their policy of keeping their own citizens, first and foremost, in the dark about the region's past. Moreover, for the same reason, they deny their own scientists access to the repositories of information of world science and Turkish archives in particular. The depraved logic of the Armenian nationalists is understandable: after all, if those academics who really want to know the truth got hold of the archives of Turkey and other countries, this would undermine the whole ideology of present-day Armenia. That is why Yerevan's policy is a very simple one: don't allow the people access to foreign historiography and now foreign archives.

All this should be taken into account by those who blindly, without knowing true history, support the Armenians' attempts to criminalize the denial of the so-called '1915 genocide'. All those who today continue to willingly accept the history concocted in Yerevan, refusing to listen to the alternative, and in fact - correct - version of historical events, should be aware of this.

How do the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and thought ardently advocated by the Europeans measure up against criminal persecution for expressing a point of view which is at variance with the version of the Armenian falsifiers? Why is the violation of the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims regarded as a demonstration of freedom of speech, but they try to regard refusal to acknowledge as genocide the controversial events of 100 years ago as a serious crime with the relevant punishment? Does a nation, which for centuries carried out genocide against the 'Turks' in Turkey and Azerbaijan - the indigenous peoples of the region - generally have the moral right to accuse them of committing genocide?" the statement says.

It should also be noted that, apart from journalists from Azerbaijan and numerous representatives of the Azerbaijani diaspora in Europe, deputies of the Azerbaijani parliament, who were in Strasbourg for the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] session, also demonstrated their support for the Turkish side. It will be at least two months before the court's verdict is returned. But one thing is already clear: whatever its outcome, this trial is significant for the fact that the Turkish side, with Azerbaijan's support, has finally switched from defence to attack.

This is the first serious step towards destroying the theory of the so-called genocide of the Armenians in 1915. The trial has showed the absurdity of the law adopted in Switzerland on the criminal responsibility of denying the "Armenian genocide". First of all, criminal indictment for denying the "Armenian genocide" is a gross violation of article 10 of the European convention on protection of human rights and basic freedoms, i.e. freedom to express one's opinion. Second, the events of 1915 in Ottoman Turkey cannot be labelled as "genocide", because there is no consensus on this question, and debates are still continuing. And finally, the adoption of decisions on this question is not the remit of the parliament of any country.

As we can see, the Turkish political establishment in the run-up to the centenary of the events of 1915 has chosen a pragmatic and balanced approach and an effective policy. In this context, apart from the case of Perincek versus Switzerland, attention is also drawn to the decision adopted by the Turkish leadership on the celebrations to mark the centenary of the victory at Canakkale [Gallipoli] on 24 April 1915 and the Armenian president's invitation to this event. Having received an invitation from Turkey for precisely this day, when the Armenian world community will be trying to consolidate its status as a "suffering people", all Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan could do was make hysterical statements. But this was only the beginning.

The German government's statement of 22 January was like a cold shower for the Armenian world community. Three deputies of the German parliament asked the government the following questions: "Will the events of 1915 be regarded as genocide? Will any actions be taken to mark the centenary of these events?" The German government's answer was more than conclusive: the events which occurred before the adoption by the UN General Assembly in 1948 of the convention on the prevention of genocide and the punishment for it cannot be regarded as genocide. The arguments about genocide are a subject for academic research. And the parties to these academic discussions should be Turkey and Armenia, which need to set up joint research groups. The German government's statement also points out that "no measures to mark the centenary of these events are being planned".

One wonders, how would the Swiss law-enforcement bodies have acted in this case? Would they have opened a criminal case against the German government, which in effect denies the "Armenian genocide"?

It is for certain that, notwithstanding the historical and political aspects, the myth of the "genocide of the Armenians" is doomed to fail in the legal sense. Historically speaking, Armenia's arguments have been destroyed by many world-renowned historians, some of them of Armenian origin. That is why the Armenian community is trying so hard to turn this question into a legal matter. However, now that we have seen the actual collapse in court, all the supporters of the recognition of the genocide of the Armenians are left with is to spin political intrigue. And here the main task of Turkey and Azerbaijan is to join forces to prevent the speculation of history and to restore justice.