During the two-day
visit to Syunik region, the Human Rights Defender of Armenia and
representatives of his staff visited Aravus, Khoznavar, Nerkin Khndzoresk and a
number of other borderline settlements.
Discussions were held
with the Mayor of Goris, the Heads of the Tegh community and its administrative
districts, the staff of the community administrations, as well as the residents
of the villages. Important discussions took place with the personnel of the Armenian
Armed Forces, who perform a heroic service.
We present below some
of the Defender's conclusions based on the results of the visit.
1. As a result of the deficiencies in the work and
coordination of the state-government bodies, not only the issues related to the
rights of the residents of the borderline settlements remains unresolved, but
the challenges related to the demarcation and delimitation of the borders may
exacerbate these issues. This directly endangers the constitutional rights to
life, physical and mental immunity, and property of the residents of the borderline
settlements.
The
state-government bodies, each within its own mandate, have a duty to pay
special attention to the issues, which are related to the state border, raised
by the residents of the borderline settlements; this issue is one of the top
priorities these days.
2. We reiterate that the issue of the demarcating or
delimitating of the state borders of Armenia should not be solved on the basis
of the applications of Google, a private organization, or Global Positioning
System (GPS).
This
issue requires professional approaches, detailed on-site work, proper legal
basis, etc.
The
monitoring of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia confirms that, for example,
as a result of that approach in a number of borderline settlements of Syunik
region, not only borderline residents' rights to life, physical and mental immunity
and other vital rights were seriously endangered, but it is also problematic
from the point of view of the Armenia state borders' security.
In
addition, an uncertain situation has arisen for borderline residents.
If
the Google Map or GPS system is accepted as a basis, then how can it be
explained that, for example, in the case of Aravus village, there is a direct
contradiction between the land-use maps of different years of those
settlements?
As
a result, people are deprived of the opportunity to use their privately-owned vital
agricultural lands (for example, as a garden, arable land or pasture), while
communities cannot use community-owned lands.
How
is it possible that in 1991, these lands were allotted to people with the right
to property, and new cadastral certificates on the state registration of
ownership over those lands were subsequently provided in 2004. In the case of
Aravus, this is an issue of private property in the size of 9 hectares and almost
of community-owned land in the size of 34 hectares, as provided by the Head of
the administrative district.
As
the Head of Tegh Community provided the Human Rights Defender, there is an
issue of private property in the size of more than 2,000 hectares.
The
issue also concerns the physical security of persons and their ability to satisfy
their fundamental needs (in Khoznavar, Khnatsakh, Nerkin Khndzorsek, Aravus,
etc.).
3.
It is necessary to carry out comprehensive work on the comparison and study of
maps from different years, as well as to identify whether the versions of the
maps used by the Azerbaijani side are uncontestable.
It
is necessary to understand why the Azerbaijani side unconditionally relies upon
Google Map or GPS systems (at least in connection with the locations of Syunik
region where the Human Rights Defender conducted fact-finding activities).
4.
There is no direct communication of state-government bodies (noncommunity
administrations) with the residents of borderline villages on issues related to
the demarcation and delimitation. This causes an unjust and irrelevant workload
for the Armenian Armed Forces personnel, who put selfless efforts in their
service
together
with the servicemen of National Security Service (NSS) Border Guard Troops.
Community
bodies are also disproportionately overloaded.
All
this creates continuing uncertainty, especially among borderline residents.
State-government
bodies have a duty to provide the public, and especially residents of borderline
areas, with appropriate information on matters concerning them. This is a
guaranteed right of citizens and a direct obligation of the state to guarantee
it. Moreover, it is not necessary to conduct all the activities publicly,
especially when it concerns sensitive issues.
This concerns the
protection of the borders of our state, the physical security and safety of our
people and each person.
5. The results of this
visit will be summarized and official letters will be sent to state-government
bodies. Necessary inquiries will be made and clarifications will be requested.
Հայերեն
