09 June 2014
Abstract: The ECHR’s Perincek v. Switzerland verdict is understandable to its full extent only by considering the previous legal cases involving allegations of genocide. When the Armenian side can present its allegations freely and without counter-argument, it is generally able to obtain victories. On the other hand, the confrontation of arguments for and against the “Armenian genocide” label leads to disastrous results for the supporters of Armenian terrorism. Moreover, the decisions of the European Union’s Court of Justice (2003-2004) rejecting the legal value of non-binding resolutions, and of the French Constitutional Council against the Boyer bill have paved the way for the ECHR’s verdict. This decision is a major victory both for freedom of speech, but also for the recognition of the scholarly debate on the Armenian question. This decision should be used not only as an argument in exchange of ideas at every level, but also as an additional legal basis for defamation cases against Armenian nationalists who attempt to portray their opponents as being no better than Holocaust-deniers.
Keywords: Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), Armenian revolutionary Federation (ARF), Armenian terrorism, European Court of European Rights, European Union’s Court of Justice, defamation, Holocaust, Switzerland, Turkey. . . .
Facing Liberty The Victory of Rational Argumentation and Its Consequences by Maxime Gauin
Source:Review of Armenian Studies, Issue 29: 2014 .