“Each of the 3 experts invited by Mr. Straesser expressed the necessity of the existence of a legal document of the Council of Europe on the criteria for legal resolution of the problem of political prisoners”
APA correspondent interviewed with Mr. Elkhan Suleymanov, member of the Azerbaijani delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and member of the concerned Committee for Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

– Why hearings on Azerbaijan at the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights were so important? Is it not just another episode in a never ending story?

– The German rapporteur, Mr. Christoph Straesser, stated recently at Azadliq Radio that these hearings in Strasbourg, organized by him and the Legal Affairs Committee, will be the basis of his report that he is drafting, in particular if finally he would not be able to visit Azerbaijan. Thus, the declarations of the experts and the comments of the members are indeed very important.”

– Why Mr. Straesser did not visit Azerbaijan, in order to prepare his report?

– The Azerbaijani side is fully committed to all its obligations as a full member of the Council of Europe, including the fact that we have to facilitate such visits by rapporteurs. We wrote to Mr. Straesser that we are taking into consideration to invite him for a visit during this year 2012. But we also insist on a legal framework that will allow him and us to distinct a so-called political prisoner from a common criminal. Since a few years we are insisting to have this debate, in all openness and transparency, but unfortunately, for unknown reasons, the Council of Europe is avoiding this debate. You should note that the terminology of a “political prisoner” is never used in the Council of Europe’s judicial branch, being the European Court for Human Rights. Also, other international organizations, including the United Nations, and even famous human rights defending organizations as Amnesty International, never use this terminology.”

– Why?

– Well, that is obvious. Never an international organization held a debate on defining the criteria of who is and who is not a “political prisoner”. So somebody should finally do that. As the Council of Europe is known as the “conscience of Europe”, it belongs to the core-business to elaborate this kind of issues. But they don’t. Mr. Straesser is following the advice of the secretariat that some report, once ordered by the secretary-general to a few experts, is largely sufficient, which of course is not. These so-called criteria were never discussed in a plenary session, thus, they are not carried on the political level. It is only a private opinion of some experts.

– So you insist on a clear definition and criteria, voted upon after a genuine and open debate, and the Council of Europe is refusing that?

– Exactly. You should know that our country is facing the attacks of many enemies, for many years. The lobbying of Armenia, and some other countries, which cannot hide their jealousy, to give us a hard time whenever it is possible, is very organized and strong, throughout the whole of Europe. We see examples of this every day, for instance the US ambassador in Baku being called back after strong Armenian lobbying in California, only because he was to constructive towards Azerbaijan.

– But let’s get back to the hearings. What was the precise purpose of these hearings and who was invited as experts?”

– It is clear that Mr. Straesser was expecting a lot from these hearings. He invited Mr. Eynulla Fatullayev, journalist, Mr. Eldar Zeynalov, the chairman of the Human Rights Center in Azerbaijan, and Mr. Murad Sadaddinov, the chairman of the Azerbaijan Foundation of democracy Development and Human Rights Protection. Our parliamentary delegation was also allowed to invite an expert, which was Mr. Ramiz Sevdimaliyev, who is head of department of ANAS (International Affairs and International Law). Thus, Mr. Straesser invited two former prisoners and one human rights defender. All of them gave their opinion about the ongoing report by Mr. Straesser. Their evaluation was very negative. They claimed that Mr. Straesser, being very stubborn and not practical, did not reach any outcome for all these years. Mr. Fatullayev for instance, also underlined the necessity of criteria and a definition. Others claimed that never got answers on their emailed messages. The testimonies of all experts, selected and invited by Mr. Straesser himself, turned out as his worst nightmare. We have warned him so many times, but we were talking to a wall. Maybe now he understands to what extend he was misled by the secretariat of the committee. Each of the 3 (three) experts invited by Mr. Straesser expressed the necessity of the existence of a legal document of the Council of Europe on the criteria for legal resolution of the problem of political prisoners.

– After the statements by the experts there was time for a debate by the MP’s. How did they react on all this?

– You should note that most of the members of the Committee for Legal Affairs are international lawyers and judges, thus, they always look for a legally formatted and binding solution, which approach I of course appreciate. In a summary, we could conclude that today the members insisted on a more academic and legal approach by the rapporteur, instead of duplicating the mission of the rapporteurs from the Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, is following up on a almost daily basis all commitments and obligations by new member-states, in particular regarding individual and identifiable cases. This work is done by two co-rapporteurs for every country. A Spanish and a Maltese MP are responsible as co-rapporteurs for our country. Mr. Straesser is confirming in a memorandum published by himself a few days ago, that for instance for Ukraine and the Russian Federation therefore there is no need to have a separate report on “political prisoners”, as this Monitoring Committee is covering this issue. He is absolutely right in that analysis. But on the other hand he is insisting on a separate report, only for Azerbaijan, even when our country, as I just explained, is also under “monitoring”.”

– And in what aspect is the Legal Affairs Committee then being different?

– The Legal Affairs Committee, on the contrary, is dealing with global legal questions. Thus, under normal circumstances, duplication with the Monitoring Committee is not possible, because competences of both committees are clearly separate. But Mr. Straesser, as a rapporteur from the Legal Affairs Committee, by all means wants to make a “monitoring” investigation in Azerbaijan, moreover without criteria. So a large majority of the members of the Legal Affairs Committee today were very clear, stating that Mr. Straesser should stay within his field of action, being global legal affairs. They suggested him for instance to draft finally a report on clear criteria or a definition, which is precisely the field of action of the Legal Affairs Committee. Anyway, I am very curious to see if he will still include all these negative comments to his person in his draft report, as he promised earlier on Azadliq radio.

– So in a summary, the experts disagreed with him, as well as the members of the committee? And what is next?

– It was suggested by several important members that Mr. Straesser, if he still wishes to visit Azerbaijan and to continue his report, he should go there – but also to other countries! – in order to elaborate a global legal document, but without interfering with ongoing monitoring activities in specific countries by his colleagues from the Monitoring committee. It was even suggested in the committee today that Mr. Straesser, being so openly disgraced by as well Azeri experts as committee members, should resign and be replaced by another rapporteur. To my opinion both solutions are ok. But one aspect should be very clear: Azerbaijan wants by all means to comply with European obligations and commitments. For example, as Chairman of the EURONEST Delegation, I have invited another German politician from the same political party SPD, Mr. Knut Fleckenstein, Member of the European Parliament, without any hesitation, who has been been appointed on the framework of the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly in the sphere of democracy and human rights, to visit our country in order to prepare a report. But different from Mr. Straesser, this MEP never made a variety of accusations and allegations against our country and against other colleagues, without any ground or proof. The biased Mr. Straesser wants to carry on with his private crusade against our country, and we will of course use all legal means to avoid that.