-You attended the meetings of the PACE for the first time. What are your impressions about the first meeting?

-As a member of the Azerbaijani delegation I have been elected member of three PACE committees – Committee on Political Affairs, Monitoring Committee and Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. My activity started from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I attended the meeting of this Committee on January 24. Just at the first meeting I was astonished at the discussions on the report on Azerbaijan prepared by our colleague from Germany Christoph Strasser. I think the Committee members were either unaware, or pretended to be unaware of the decisions about the political prisoners passed by the Bureau and the Committee in the past five years. Therefore, I urgently prepared the chronology of the issue. I expressed my confidence that the Bureau would closely observe the Committee’s legal and unbiased approach to the issue, and sent a letter to PACE President, Chairman, Secretary and members of the Committee.

– Why has PACE recently brought to the agenda again the issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan?

-In the letter to the PACE President I outlined the happenings of the past four years in the chronological order. On December 18, 2007, Pourgourides and all members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights offered to “observe the issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan”. On March 13, 2008, PACE Bureau decided to postpone the related decision till June, 2008. On January 26, 2009, the Bureau decided to direct this proposal for “report” to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Mr. Strasser was appointed rapporteur. All members of the PACE Bureau make a proposal on the report “to determine the notion of political prisoners” for all member states in order to refrain from the double standards and possible violation of the criteria for individual cases in a number of countries. On June 22, the Bureau decided to learn the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. On September 11, though it was on the agenda, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights was not engaged in the Bureau’s request to learn the opinion. Following Pourgourides’ proposal the Committee decided to postpone the issue till the next meeting. On September 29, the issue was discussed at the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights during the plenary session in Strasbourg.

In that time, Chairman Pourgourides and some members advocated for including this report in the existing report on Azerbaijan with Strasser to present it. But after the discussions and open vote, PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights decided to request the Bureau to send him the proposal “for report”, not taken its inclusion into consideration, which means different report. At last, on November 19, taken the Committee’s opinion into consideration, the Bureau sent the second proposal “for report” to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and it was different report. On December 16, Chairman Pourgourides proposed to appoint Strasser (in his absence) the rapporteur on “determination of the concept of political prisoner”. In June, 2010, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights investigated the preliminary version of the report prepared by Strasser during the Assembly’s plenary session. Although the previous decisions of the Bureau and Committee, it was decided to sum up the two reports (watch on state of political prisoners in Azerbaijan and notion of political prisoner) in one single presented by Strasser as only rapporteur.

– How do you see the solution of the problem of “political prisoner” and what proposals do you have?

– During the Committee’s meeting on January 24, Pourgourides once again stated that there were no reasons to prepare different report on “determination of political prisoner”. This position is contradictory to the Bureau’s decision on preparation of the preliminary report on “determination of political prisoner”. This fact clearly proves that the Bureau thinks it needs to determine these criterions or, at least, to review and realize all of existing possible criterions. I learned that rapporteur Strasser is preparing only report coordinated with the Committee determining the political prisoner in the first part and implementation of these criterions in a country in the second part. This position is contradictory to the Bureau’s decision and the committee’s preliminary decision. It is not acceptable that same person determines the criterions and assess a country in the report in accordance with “own” criterions. This is against the main principles of the legal norms as well. The rapporteur and the committee can not make final decision on such criterions. The final decision on such criterions can be made by the PACE plenary meeting on the basis of interests of all member countries and after the open discussions within the interests and confidence of the organization. For all of these reasons, I express protest against the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and particularly biased approach by its chairman. As the PACE member, I insist in respect for the previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I think that respecting the PACE Bureau, and supremacy of law in our country, the Azerbaijani officials are against the preparation of any report without determination of criterions connected with the concept of political prisoner and without adoption of relevant convention or resolution at the PACE plenary session.

– What do you think, who must elaborate these criterions? Who must be entrusted with this work?

– My personal opinion is that it is absurd that there is no any legal document and both reports were given to one rapporteur.

In my opinion, the Committee on Human Rights and Legal Affairs must accept the decision on establishment of subcommittee on “political prisoners” for the impartial, objective solving of the problem without any discrimination. The document project which includes the “political prisoner” concept and the criteria for determining of political prisoners must be prepared by the members of that subcommittee. This project becomes the legal document for all 47 members of the CE after its putting to vote and admitting in the PACE’s plenary session. That document can be in the form of Council of Europe’s relevant convention or PACE’s declaration. The subcommittee must continue its further activity by holding monitoring in the Council of Europe’s member countries without any discrimination. As the MP, I insist in adopting the official document (convention or declaration) by the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe and will raise this question at the next meetings. I think that any concrete official can not prepare the document which reflects “political prisoner” concept and its criterions, this will only be his thoughts and position on this issue. Besides, if a concrete official prepares such criterions, he can not be the rapporteur for this country.

– Why PACE hasn’t determined the criteria on political prisoners yet?

– It is not a secret that, the problem on political prisoners does not concern only Azerbaijan, but many CE member countries. It is understandable that many our colleagues concern over the complication of many cases in their countries by these biased criterions, which were created to attempt to condemn just one member country. I will not against if most of the members of the organization consider the preparation of the report on political prisoners claimed to exist in Azerbaijan significant after the adoption of PACE resolution on determination of criterions of the notion of political prisoner. But we have a right not to be the victim of double standards. We have a right to hold investigations on universal criterions and standards which are relevant for all member countries, adopted by plenary meeting.

– In this case it will be wrong for any rapporteur to visit Azerbaijan and prepare any report

– I have not changed my opinion. I don’t see any reason to support the visit of any rapporteur to Azerbaijan until the PACE’s plenary meeting determines these criterions. Such rapporteur will use this visit in order to damage my country’s image, to run all member countries into difficulties and put into question PACE’s confidence as an international organization. That’s why I don’t recommend our authoritative bodies to invite any rapporteur to our country till the Council of Europe discusses and completes the issue on determining of universal criterions of political prisoners.

– Which argument makes the opposite side to your opinions?

– I have addressed chairman and secretariat of that Committee in connection with discussions conducted in the Committee meeting. I asked them to send me copy of any decision passed by PACE at the plenary meeting in connection with determination of concept of political prisoner and its criterions. As answer to a letter, the secretariat presented to me resolution titled “Political prisoners in Azerbaijan” #1272 (1) passed by PACE in 2002 on release of several concrete prisoners, especially Alikram Humbatov, Isgandar Hamidov and Rahim Gaziyev or reconsideration of their cases in the court. I told the secretariat that this resolution did not reflect neither concept of any “political prisoner” nor any criterion. I may say that my address to the chairmanship and secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights remained unanswered.

– Probably you are aware of Strasser’s statement on this issue?

– Of course. Today, according to logic of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Strasser writes criterions himself, then tries to experiment it over Azerbaijan without ratification at the Plenary Session. Even he tries to do it with great activeness and diligence. He says that as if Azerbaijani embassy in Germany does not give visa to him. Let me say another issue. Without warning Azerbaijani delegation and PACE Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs on Azerbaijan Joseph Debono Grech and Pedro Agramund, he held meetings with some NGO representatives in Strasbourg. I ask member of German Bundestag Strasser and his Greek colleague Pourgourides: “May we come to your country without any legal document and meet with your officials in order to discuss problem on political prisoner? I say undoubtedly: No! The facts prove that Pourgourides made a tendentious speech against Azerbaijan without paying attention to PACE Bureau’s decision and he deceived the bureau members intentionally to achieve own purposes, giving wrong information to them about declaration related to as if “political prisoner” concept and criterion, adopted in PACE .