MP: Armenia has no moral right to make any claims against Azerbaijan on ECHR's decision
BAKU, Azerbaijan, May 27
By Elchin Mehdiyev – Trend:
The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the case of Ramil Safarov does not impose any international obligations on Azerbaijan, Vice Speaker of the Azerbaijani Parliament Adil Aliyev said, Trend reports.
"Ramil Safarov was extradited from Hungary to Azerbaijan in 2012, but even after 8 years, the "fury" of the Armenians did not cool down,” the vice speaker noted.
“Ramil Safarov is the worthy son of Azerbaijan. Any of our compatriots in his place would punish the one who insulted the Azerbaijani flag. What gives Armenia any right to demand any compensation in this case? Safarov served an 8-year sentence in Hungarian prison, then was extradited to Azerbaijan and pardoned by the decision of the head of state. Maybe the Armenians thought that after spending 8 years in prison, Safarov would live the rest of his life in prison at home? Those in Armenia and occupied Karabakh better worry about being responsible for the committed crimes, aggression, and acts of genocide," he said.
Aliyev reminded that the ECHR has a decision of 2015 regarding the “Chiragov and Others vs. Armenia” case, according to which, Armenia’s responsibility for the occupation of Azerbaijani territories was proved.
"This is an official confirmation of the occupation of Azerbaijani lands, that is, a crime. Demanding “justice” from the ECHR, Armenia does not want to implement a much more important decision of this organization, that is, to stop the occupation and put an end to the violation of the rights of more than one million of our fellow citizens. Therefore, the Armenian government has no moral right to put forward any demands against Azerbaijan. Along with this, the ECHR satisfied the main claim of Armenia. Firstly, the court’s decision does not require cancellation of the Act of Pardon, which is the main subject of the dispute, or re-examination of the case against Ramil Safarov. Secondly, the claim for a material violation of the right to life was also rejected,” he said.