NEWS/GLOBAL
A Turkish politician has won
a landmark case against the Swiss authorities following an important freedom of
speech ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday
The Court ruled that Doğu Perinçek
was within his rights to reject the description of the mass killings of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire a century ago
as ‘genocide’, as it was not tantamount to inciting racial hatred. However, the
court refused to be drawn on how the massacres should be described.
Why Switzerland convicted Doğu Perinçek
The leader of the Turkish
Workers Party had found himself in the dock in Switzerland in 2005 for stating
that the "Armenian genocide is a
great international lie." The Swiss Armenian Association filed a
criminal complaint against Perinçek, claiming his comments contravened Swiss anti-racism
laws and incited hatred, which Perincek vigorously denied.
The veteran politician does
not deny the massive suffering and loss of Armenian life during 1915-1918.
However, he claims the circumstances did not amount to genocide.
His defence was not accepted
by the Swiss courts. In 2007, they convicted Perinçek, asserting "his motives were of a racist
tendency" and ordered him to pay a fine.
Perinçek refused and after
exhausting the appeals process in Switzerland , he took his case to
the ECHR claiming his right to freedom of speech had been infringed. In 2013,
the European court found in his favour and overturned the Swiss court’s verdict.
This decision was appealed
by the Swiss authorities. Both Turkey
and Armenia
also became parties to the case, aware of the legal implications the ECHR’s final
ruling would have on the issue. Armenia
was represented by barristers Amal Clooney and Geoffrey Robertson QC from London ’s Doughty Street
Chambers, the former ensuring widespread international media coverage of the
case.
Why Turkey
refutes Armenia ’s
genocide claims
The deaths occurred during an
horrific four-year war, where invading powers were trying to carve up the rump
of the Ottoman Empire . They had promised
Armenians their own homeland if they revolted against Turkish rule. It was in
this context, Turkey
argues, that many innocent Armenians perished, alongside hundreds of thousands
of Turks.
Thousands of Armenians perished during forced deportations during WWI |
The ECHR’s ruling
On 15 October, the ECHR’s 17-judge
Grand Chamber laid down its judgement in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland . The
Chamber is the ECHR’s highest court: its decisions are final and binding on all
members of the Council of Europe.
In a majority 10-7 ruling,
the Grand Chamber upheld the ECHR’s earlier decision that Perinçek's remarks "did not amount to advocacy of hatred
or intolerance".
The judges noted that the
Swiss courts appeared to have "censured
[Perinçek] for having simply expressed an opinion divergent from those held in Switzerland ",
and that Perinçek's conviction had been "unnecessary"
to protect the rights of the Armenian community.
The ECHR said it did not
have the authority to rule on whether the Armenian killings amounted to genocide
or not. It argued such matters were for the international criminal courts to decide.
The Court added that "the dignity" of the victims
of the Ottoman massacres and the "dignity
and identity of modern-day Armenians" is protected by the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Rauf Denktaş backed Perinçek
Following the verdict, the
Swiss authorities said they would review the ruling carefully to determine what
changes were needed to their penal code.
Rauf Denktaş (left) with Doğu Perinçek in 2005 |
Doğu Perinçek hailed the
decision as a “monumental victory” and acknowledged the role of the late TRNC
President Rauf Denktaş, who had backed his campaign against Swiss censorship.
The late Turkish Cypriot leader, a lawyer by profession, had joined Perinçek in
Lausanne in 2005, where he publicly refused to
kow-tow to Switzerland ’s
new genocide denial laws, telling Perinçek to stand firm as he would eventually
be victorious.
Perinçek believes the
landmark ruling will make it easier for people to challenge the Armenians over
their 1915 claims
While some Armenians have
slammed the decision, others have pointed to the seven dissenting judges who
viewed the Armenian case more favourably, and that the ruling could be
interpreted in favour of genocide recognition.
RELATED NEWS
No comments:
Post a Comment