The
archival documents evidence that during Soviet times, the cases of Azerbaijani
authorities participating in official discussions during border disputes
between Armenia and Azerbaijan were numerous, however at the same time they
organized attacks against Armenian villagers, usurped their lands, and then
used those usurped lands as topics of “discussions (Barana, now Noyemberyan,
Koghp, Koti, Dopegh, and other villages).
For
example, despite the April 28 1923 decision of the land dispute commission of
the Central Committee Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic,
which intended to hand over a land with an area of 5000 “desyatinas” in the
region of Shinikh-Ayrumi to Kazakh Uyezd (administrative unit), the land
construction group of Kazakh had developed a completely different plan,
ignoring the demand of that decision.
At
the same time, the Azerbaijani local authorities had illegally taken over a
much larger land from the Armenian SSR, then envisaged in the decision. In
particular, by terrorizing the local forester, they had occupied an area of
around 7000 “desyatinas”, increasing their “accomplishment” to 11,8000
“desyatinas”, and turning it into a subject for discussions.
Another
example; since May 1922, the border disputes and the final works of the
commissions of the uyezds of Tavush, Garvansara (Ichevan) and Kazakh were
continuously delayed, since the Azerbaijanis had organized the occupation of
lands which belonged to the Armenians, but were under their domain, and were
refusing to return them. These created problems for the villagers in their
attempt to access pastures, forests and water sources.
In
general, according to the archival documents, the history of the disputes of
the mentioned villages of the uyzds evidences that the disputes often arose due
to large Azerbaijani large landowners (in the archival documents, they are name
“property-owners”), who used to sell their lands to Armenians, and later demand
the back, without any basis.
Another
issue was the fact that the authorities of the Soviet Armenia did not
adequately respond to the mentioned issue, to prevent the violation of the
rights of the Armenian villagers.
These
evidences should be considered as lessons learned, to prevent the violation of
the rights of the border residents of Armenia.
In
parallel to security and other components, the rights of the villagers, and in
general human rights, should be the basis of any decision related to the
borders of Armenia, excluding any mechanical approach.
Mr.
Arman Tatoyan
The
Human Rights Defender of Armenia