Yesterday’s June 2
announcement of the Council of Public Broadcaster, which references the May 30,
2021 reportage of the Public Television on the so-called “Azerbaijani enclaves”
broadcasted by the “News” program further reinforces the serious violations of
the rights and interests of the border residents of the Republic of Armenia and
the dangers to their security.
This statement of the Human
Rights Defender stems from the need to protect the rights and interests of the
population of Armenia, and first and foremost, those of border residents (life,
physical and mental inviolability, property and free movement, and other
rights), to ensure their security.
In particular, the day
after the above-mentioned report of the Public Television, on May 31, the Human
Rights Defender had to make a public condemnation, which aimed to prevent such
programs from being aired later by the Public Television and by other news
organizations and journalists. Moreover, the wording of the Defender’s
statement was specially chosen so that the already targeted young journalist
would not be subjected to additional targeting.
But the very disturbing
statement of the Council of Public Broadcaster as a state institution
completely changes the presumption, that the report with the dangerous emphases
of the Public Television program “News” is in fact a special program policy or
part of it.
Moreover, this presumption is
reinforced by the recent irresponsible statements of public officials, which
openly violate the rights of border residents of Armenia and endanger their
security.
With their statements, these
officials, in fact, provide evidence that can be used in various platforms,
including in international ones, against the rights and interests of the
Republic of Armenia and its citizens.
Moreover, the Human Rights
Defender’s response to the reportage on May 31 was conditioned by the fact that
studies had already recorded, as expected by the Defender, that numerous television
and print materials of the Azerbaijani media happily made the reportage a
subject of public discussion in Azerbaijan, noting that in Armenia at the state
level, acknowledge that fact that these villages belong to Azerbaijan
(references at the end of this statement). Moreover, calls for “taking back
Azerbaijani villages from Armenian occupation” are already spreading.
In the mentioned Azerbaijani
propaganda materials, as a proof in favor of Azerbaijan, the words of the
Member of Parliament elected from Tavush are used, by which he considered a
number of villages of Tavush “Azerbaijani.” These materials even claim in favor
of Azerbaijan that the reportage was prepared on the instructions of the
Armenian government.
Therefore, in order to dispel
this dangerous presumption, the Council of Public Broadcaster is obliged to
answer at least the following questions instead of justifying the reportage with
the dangerous emphases of the Public Television endangering the rights and
security of the citizens of Armenia:
1) Is Tigranahsen
intentionally represented as an “Azerbaijani enclave” or “Azerbaiajni
territory”, and is this a specific program policy, when Tigranashen did not
have the status of an enclave; it is a historical Armenian village.
2) Why is it only noted that
the village was part of Soviet Azerbaijan and there is no mention that the
village was initially part of the first Republic of Armenia, and later part of
Soviet Armenia?
3) Why is the Armenian
village of Karke (now Tigranashen) included in Soviet Armenia named after the
Azerbaijani Karki?
4) Isn’t the Council of
Public Broadcaster aware that in the immediate vicinity of Tigaranashen to the
depths of Nakhichevan, there is an Armenian village or enclave, the historic
Armenian village of Genut, named after the evergreen tree of Gehenna, which was
part of Soviet Armenia?
Even, for example, in the
USSR in 1926. The village is part of Armenia on the map (the map is published
as an appendix to this announcement). Over the years, the village was divided
into two parts due to the settlement of the Turkish Jafarlu dynasty and was
renamed Jafarlu-Gunut.
5) Why is the belonging of
the villages discussed from the point of view of the Azerbaijani state policy,
guided only by the ethnicity of the population?
Does the Council of Public
Broadcaster realize that the fact that a settlement is populated by members of
a nation does not automatically imply that the territory belongs to the state
of that nation?
6) Why do the historic
Armenian villages of Tavush, for example, Voskepar, which during 1918-1920, and
the Soviet period belonged to the Barana area of Ijevan Uyezd, is unilaterally
represented and asserted to be an Azerbaijani enclave and etc.?
7) Why is there an absence of any form of
discussion in the reportage about the dangerous consequences to the rights and
security of not only the of the residents of those villages, but also to the
population of Armenia, if we are guided by those fake assertions that the
villages discussed in the reportage are Azerbaijani?
8) Is it not clear to the Council
of Public Broadcaster, that “Azerbaijani enclave” implies that the territory is
not Armenian, but Azerbaijani, and if the issue is resolved in that manner,
this will create new internally displaced persons, will deprive the border
residents of Armenia of their properties, will endanger the lives of the
residents of Tavush and Ararat, and the free and secure movement through those provinces
(exactly as the situation in the Syunik province)?
9) On what grounds does the
channel established by the Government broadcasts a reportage which submits to
the public discussion a draft document with suspicious content related to the
demarcation and delimitation with Azerbaijan; the concrete text of the
document, its formulations and concepts have not been published by any official
source and have not been confirmed by the state. Moreover, issues related to
change of status of the territory based on the draft is being discussed, also
by making a reference to the supreme law, the Constitution of Armenia?
10) Does the Council of
Public Broadcaster know that the policy of the news policy of the Public
Television is perceived as an official state approach in international
platforms, since the channel is state owned, and is established by the Armenian
Government?
11) Does the Council of
Public Broadcaster know that the reportage has created a credible evidence
against the rights and interests of the Republic of Armenia, and its citizens?
All of these above-mentioned
are taking place on the expense of the mass tortures and dispossession of our
compatriots as a result of the September-November 2020 war, and in the
conditions where gross violations of the human rights of the border residents,
as a result of the presence of Azerbaijani armed servicemen in the immediate
vicinity of the Armenian border villages and on the roads between the
communities, are registered. In the conditions where the residents are deprived
of their lands, pastures and homes, where they cannot use the roads freely,
where the Azerbaijani armed servicemen are shooting in the vicinity of the
villages, are dragging, betraying and threatening Armenian shepherds. In the
conditions where the Azerbaijani authorities are deepening the Armenophobia and
enmity, declaring Yerevan, Sevan and the Syunik provinces as strategic and
political aim.
Moreover, the reportage is
broadcast in conditions where the demarcation and delimitation activities are
not realized and cannot be realized; a fact which has also been confirmed by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is the blatant distortions
of such historical facts, the inability to learn from history, and the highly
condemnable approaches violating the rights of the border residents and their
security, that have deprived us from the legal grounds to protect the rights
and interests of the Republic of Armenia, threating the security of its
borders.
And lastly, for the knowledge
of the Council of Public Broadcaster we advise to take into consideration that
when the Human Rights Defender of Armenia responds publicly to any issue, then
it is based on solid evidence, and the problems are meticulously recorded.
The Constitutional function
of the Human Rights Defender to protect the rights of the Armenian citizens
from the acts of the state bodies, conducting an appropriate monitoring over
them.
The Public Television, being
established by the Armenian Government and functioning through state financing,
while the Council of Public Broadcaster, being formed by the state, are under
the direct attention of the Human Rights Defender.
Therefore, we demand from the
Council of Public Broadcaster to remain within the context of their mandate,
maintain the correctness, and not to try to give assessments about issues
related to the performance of the mandate of the Human Rights Defender.
Therefore, this is in
reference to the functions of the Human Rights Defender to protect the rights
of the Armenian citizens, and not about the absolutely condemnable attempts to
shift the issue into the sphere of interfering with the activities of the media
through manipulative arguments.
Hence, the Human Rights
Defender strongly reaffirms their May 31 statement about the fact that the
emphasis made by reportage of the Public Television on May 30 directly
contradicts the rights of the border residents of Armenia in this already
complicated situation.
We also reaffirm also that
the use of the political-mechanical term “Azerbaijani enclave” is not
acceptable from the viewpoint of human rights: It directly endangers the rights
and security of the population of Armenia, and foremost those of the border
residents.
Moreover, the Human Rights
Defender draws the attention of the competent authorities and officials of
Armenia to the dangerous statement of the Council of Public Broadcaster yesterday,
June 2, the May 30 reportage of the Public Television to neutralize the
attempts to use them against the rights and interests of the citizens of
Armenia. This is especially important because the Council of Public Broadcaster’s
statement not only gave the reportage more coverage, but also confirmed the
“authenticity” of the reportage’s dangerous emphases.
Before the Council of Public
Broadcaster provides the answers to the above questions, the Human Rights
Defender expresses readiness to conduct trainings for the Council of Public
Broadcaster and the Management of the “News” program of the Public Television
on the specifics of coverage of issues related to the rights of border
residents of Armenia, including historical facts.
Below are some examples of
links to Azerbaijani public propaganda platforms that referred to the May 30
report of the Public Television:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7EMtcE_K78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiXrq-q1DE4
https://araz.az/index.php/zhuend-m/14438-erm-nistan-televiziyasinin-nakhdzivanin-k-ndil-bazhli-reportazhi-olk-ni-garisdirdi-video?fbclid=IwAR1KitC8N-PXwit-kxdqb_jJ1YJi7MR6LqIn9h9Wb0p5tnFXNx2pcCTyViY
https://azvision.az/news/262699/news.html?fbclid=IwAR2gZ5jgLPqtuujH-SNUXZUXjyyZJibIs8S7WNohtdEeee6NCHOtYqIOErI
https://globall.az/xeber-lenti/17016-ermenistan-televiziyasinin-naxcivanin-kendile-bagli-reportaji-olkeni-qarisdirdi-.html?
fbclid=IwAR2uO7iJw5hAmx2ce2Eu3GOQD_RmdNa_D59sH8fDYbqQ-uHkOFoivLrFOEU
https://azerforum.com/az/ermenistan-kanalinin-naxcivanin-kendiyle-bagli-reportaji-olkeni-qarishdirdi-video?fbclid=IwAR2c9XnogD7jrdO3Dd5WPe1247wqyneovltG0k8h0KNciUTKXjR_bUPfUFM
http://pia.az/ermenistan-televiziyasinin-naxcivanin-kendile-bagli-reportaji-olkeni-qarisdirdi-%E2%80%93%C2%A0video-404524-xeber.html?fbclid=IwAR1unySTBEITScX7w1sSXFomsmLmJbzpfqccccm2BYx2dajhzOEaGogk3BM
https://www.sportinfo.az/idman_xeberleri/problem/115488.html?fbclid=IwAR15N7paUgdGXfvq1W0MZORs677pxMlam-5-8G0fBprecJZfihiAlxe-wKM
Mr.
Arman Tatoyan
The
Human Rights Defender of Armenia
Հայերեն
