Readers' comments

Would you like to post a comment ? Be the first to share your thoughts.

Post a comment

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. However, comments not pertaining to the topic or containing slander or offensive language will be deleted. You have to be registered to be able leave your comment. Sign in or Register now for free.

Sefilyan is a well-known Karabakh war veteran, a decorated commander of the “Shushi” battalion. His arrest caused bewilderment in parts of Armenian society, not least because the gravity of the charge under article 301 of Armenia’s penal code is unusual – the matter concerns an alleged coup d’etat.

Armenia’s young statehood knows few such examples. Apart from the notorious prosecution of the terrorist group led by Nairi Hunanyan, convicted for the storming of the National Assembly on October 27, 1999, such a charge was leveled also in December 1994 when the first President of Armenia Levon Ter Petrosyan suspended the activities of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Dashnaktsutyun “in view of the illegitimate function of the party in Armenia and the preparation of a coup d’etat”.

The fact of this organization’s “foreign nature” was mentioned as a special point; the party’s leader at that time, Hrair Marukhyan, head of the ARF’s Athens Bureau, was deported from Armenia on an order issued by Levon Ter Petrosyan.

Another case was registered in November 2000 when the President of the “21st Century” independent association, Arkady Vardanyan, a Russian citizen, was charged with “calling for the violent overthrow of the state or public order”. Vardanyan had organized a rally in Yerevan attended by thousands of people, which called for President Robert Kocharyan’s resignation. The same day he was arrested and held in custody for ten days. This event did not elicit a wide public response, not least because Vardanyan was a controversial figure in many people’s eyes.

Reasons given for Sefilyan’s arrest include his public and political activities as leader of the movement “In Defense of Liberated Territories”. This organization was established in response to what its founders viewed as the “compromise and mutual concessions” involved in official Yerevan’s declared policy on settling the Karabakh question. Many Karabakh veterans are deeply opposed to any suggestion that the Nagorno Karabakh defense force should return certain occupied regions to Azerbaijan.

For a fuller understanding of the nature of the antagonism between this hardline pressure group and the authorities, it is necessary to refer immediately to the object of the conflict proper. Seven regions of the former Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic are controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh defense army – Aghdam, Fizuli, Jebrahil, Kubatli, Zangelan, Kelbajar and Lachin. These regions cover an area of 8,810 square kilometers, or a little more than 10 percent of the territory of the former Soviet Azerbaijan.

Kelbajar – 1,936 sq. km;
Lachin – 1,835 sq. km;
Kubatli – 802 sq. km;
Jebrahil – 1,050 sq. km;
Zangelan – 707 sq. km;
Aghdam – 1,094 sq. km;
Fizuli – 1,386 sq. km.

The issue of the self-determination and international recognition of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) is practically not disputed in Armenian society, along with the inevitability of a common land border between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. In this context particular attention is paid to the Lachin and Kelbajar corridors linking NKR with the Syunik and Gegharkunik regions of Armenia.

Official Yerevan, which currently represents also the interests of NKR in the Minsk Group negotiating process of the OSCE, is seeking the observance of three fundamental principles:

1. Nagorno Karabakh cannot be part of Azerbaijan.

2. Nagorno Karabakh cannot exist as an enclave and must have a land border

with Armenia. 3. Clear international guarantees of NKR’s security must be provided.

In this respect, Armenian society on the whole supports the position of official Yerevan; there are certain differences on another issue – the political status of seven regions surrounding NKR that currently form a so-called “Security Belt” around Nagorno Karabakh. The conflict between the organization “In Defense of Liberated Territories” and the authorities is conditioned by the readiness of the authorities to settle this issue on the basis of “mutual concessions”.

The situation became aggravated after the Parliamentary debates on Nagorno Karabakh that took place in Yerevan on March 30-31, 2005. During the open hearings, Armenia’s Defense Minister and Secretary of the National Security Council Serzh Sargsyan repeated the three fundamental principles for any settlement but added that “Aghdam is not our native land”.

A week later, Sefilyan issued the text of an address to “Armenia’s Defense Minister and other representatives of the authorities of Armenia” from the organization he heads.

“On my own behalf and on behalf of a group of servicemen who are in the army today, on behalf of thousands of war veterans and also – I reserve this right – on behalf of those who fell in the battlefields, I appeal to Serzh Sargsyan and other officials standing at the helm of power: sirs, your actions today are treachery. I urge you to stop, otherwise you will face severe punishment. Concessions made not only in name but in deed are misleading;

a) first, the international community that gradually toughens requirements to Armenia;

b) secondly, Azerbaijan, which is getting tougher and more self-assured;

c) thirdly, our people who do not believe any politician anymore.

The liberated territories have their masters. This is not only me, this is the whole Armenian people.”

In July last year, during a meeting with participants of the third All-Armenian youth forum, Armenia’s defense minister said: “They – Americans, Frenchmen and Russians (ed. the OSCE Minsk Group) may well say nothing no matter how hard I try to explain to them that Aghdam is our Homeland. However, in that case, as a man capable of conducting negotiations and solving problems I may lose their trust.”

On July 12, Sefilyan stated: “There is no Karabakh conflict – this issue was solved a long time ago. The opinion of the Armenian authorities does not coincide with public sentiments. If the authorities try to cede these territories to Azerbaijan, the public will react and will not allow that to happen.”

Meanwhile, presidential advisor Seyran Avagyan on December 11 advised the mass media not to get involved in the case of Sefilyan’s arrest. He said: “Sefilyan’s detention is a matter strictly for the law-enforcement bodies and one should treat with caution issues like this and no one must meddle in the affairs of others. The mass media must mind their job and the law-enforcers doing theirs. One shouldn’t overestimate their powers.”

On the same day, Sefilyan’s lawyer Vahe Grigoryan alleged that “there were plans to deport Sefilyan on tonight’s flight to Aleppo, Syria”. Grigoryan argued that the actions of the law-enforcers – namely detention and deportation – ran contrary to the Venice Convention protecting diplomats and their families. He informed the media that Sefilyan’s wife is an aide to the ambassador of Lebanon to Armenia, and thus Sefilyan is fully subject to the Convention. “In this regard the internal squabbles in connection with Sefilyan’s detention may grow into a diplomatic scandal.”

Meanwhile, the Embassy of Lebanon in Armenia has not yet taken any steps in connection with Sefilyan’s detention. The Lebanese Embassy’s report issued on December 12 stated that “the diplomatic mission is going to wait until after the expiry of the 72-hour term of detention stipulated by law”.

The embassy contradicted Grigoryan, saying that “Sefilyan is not a member of a diplomat’s family, as his wife is only an aide to the ambassador of Lebanon to Armenia and, consequently, the Venice Convention of the protection of diplomats and members of their families extends only to his wife”.

The hearing of Sefilyan’s case took place on December 12 at Kentron and Nork-Marash first instant court. He was charged with criminal offences according not only to Article 301 of RA criminal code but also Article 235 on illegal acquisition and holding of weapon. The hearing that lasted more than seven hours resulted in sentencing Jhirayr Sefilyan to 2 months of imprisonment.