Regarding Bernard Lewis's Trial in France

Broomstick France
Some may remember that yesterday a member named Taron provided the text of verdict regarding Bernard Lewis' trial in France...

I have read the entire text and it appears that the court deemed him guilty based on three documents provided to the court by the plaintiffs. The pertinent part of the verdict is as follows:

"Whereas this thesis is contradicted by the documents submitted in evidence, which show that, in the study of the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide adopted by the (1) United Nations subcommittee on August 29, 1985, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians is among the cases of genocides recorded in the twentieth century; (2) that the conference entitled "Permanent Court of the Peoples'" held in Paris on August 28, 1984, which brought together prominent international figures, held that the accusation of Armenian genocide brought against the Turkish authorities was well founded; and that, (3) in a resolution approved on June 10, 1987, the European Parliament acknowledged the reality of the Armenian genocide and held that Turkey's refusal to acknowledge it constituted an obstacle to that country's membership in the European Community;"

As far as I know from the TAT website, the UN report mentioned as item (1) (i.e. the Whitaker report) eventually was not approved by UN. The TAT page says:

[(23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled `Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ,' which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916'.

TAT: The claim of acceptance is an out-and-out falsehood. The 14-to-1 vote pertained to Resolution 1985/9 and not the "Study of Genocide" Report (also known as the Whitaker Report, named after the rapporteur who prepared it). The Sub-Commission refused to receive the report, deleting the word "receives" from the draft resolution, merely taking "note" of the study. It refused to praise the report by deleting words such as "the quality of," and refused to transmit it to the Commission on Human Rights. In order to clear the record in response to Armenian propagandistic claims, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq stated on October 5th, 2000: "(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide.]

If this is true, then how come the court considered that report as an evidence? I mean, does that report have any legal value in a court of law?

Furthermore, can item (2) be considered to have any legal weight in a court of law? I mean, do the resolutions or conclusions of a conference have any judicial value? I could not find the minutes of or information as to that conference? Anyone?

And last of all, how come the resolution of a political/legislative body (i.e. item (3), european parliament resolution) be provided as an evidence? Is that a proper evidence in this particular case? Do anyone have further info regarding that resolution?

Could group members attending law school or practicing law please provide some clarification as to these?

And also, I would expect the court to appoint and establish a group of experts (bilirkis,i heyeti) among historians specialized on the subject. And those three evidences are from late 1980s...Isn't the court required to check whether there have been any revision/updates on the subject matter in 20 years?

- "(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide. (Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000)."

[On June 4-7, 2005, at a Florida Atlantic University genocide conference, Juan Mendez, Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide to the Secretary General of the United Nations, was criticized for calling the Armenians' genocide an "event." This article tells us that the Argentinian "responded that since the UN has not
officially recognized the genocide, he was not allowed to call it that.]

- I'm not going to give direct answers to your questions because I haven't checked carefully the links that you studied or the link regarding this case, which seem to be contradicting each other.

So without having looked into anything, this is what I'll say: the document in French could have been a court decision, but it is very possible that this specific court decision has been rejected later on or amended by another court that is superior to it. The presence of a court decision in and of itself may mean nothing and provide only part of the picture. I have NOT done any research on this topic,

Also, this was way earlier than the French ban of free speech regarding Armenian Genocide, so if the same thing happened now presumably anybody denying the genocide in France AND Switzerland will be found GUILTY. End of discussion. So ANY case we need to make needs to ATTACK the French System of Jurisprudence altogether rather than try to figure out whether the French or Swiss court found this person or that person guilty of anything.

Turkish side will always lose this debate in France or Switzerland. We are simply not allowed to defend ourselves. Because they've REMOVED our right to due process. They've done that by passing Legislative Laws that prevent the "Accused" Turkish side to defend herself via a Judiciary Process. They overrode the independence of COURTS via their Legislative System (via passing this law in the Parliament).

This is the end of democracy as we know it. No one power of government can have authority over the other (Legislative, Judiciary, Executive). Otherwise, the checks and balances of democracy will be gone.

"Could group members attending law school or practicing law please provide some clarification as to these?"

I'm not sure if anyone practicing law and yes there are people who practice law who are part of our forum (Thank God they are) but I figured it all out :)))

I specialize in risk management and uncertainty. So do NOT take whatever I take for granted in any way or form. Here's part of my wisdom:

Your chances to have a fair trial or the right due AND impartial process are immediately increased as long as you are one of the following:

1) Rich - And hence powerful, and this overrides many other items below.
2) White
3) Of European Background
4) Christian
5) Male
6) Exist to serve the agendas of powers that be that are controlling the nation and hence the system of government.

That having been said, questions such as the following:

"Furthermore, can item (2) be considered to have any legal weight in a court of law? I mean, do the resolutions or conclusions of a conference have any judicial value? I could not find the minutes of or information as to that conference? Anyone?"

don't mean much.... Anything could have judicial value and in the absence of good defense, anything is fair game. This has happened over and over again. The assumption that Western Countries are being governed by democracy is the false one that we are all making. First, we need to enlighten ourselves as to how undemocratic these countries really are. Only then can we effectively deal with all the discrimination and prejudice we face in the "Western" civilization.

A GREAT example that I like to give is the lack of due process for the Guantanamo prisoners which actually became a huge problem in terms of democracy in America. These prisoners have not had due process even in a military court and for nearly 5-6 years, many were held there without even having been officially charged of anything. Why was America able to do it? Because the Bush Administration passed laws in the Congress enabling them to do so (You see Executive Branch overriding the Judiciary via using the Legislative Process). This IS a very serious problem for democracy and human rights, and look at how American democracy crumbled in the presence of terror. That's the excuse - terror.

Turkey has had countless episodes of terror before and after the founding of the republic. I hypothesize that no European OR American country would have had HALF the democracy that Turkey managed and still manages to have IF they had to deal with the kind of terrorism that we do, among other things.

End of discussion regarding democracy in Turkey as far as I'm concerned :)))

These having been said, there are a lot of ways that pro-Turkish people may make their case in France and Switzerland. This is how we do it: We don't "deny" the genocide. We never say that genocide did NOT happen. We don't do DEFENSE because duh, it's forbidden.

Instead, we go directly on the offensive. We talk about the many massacres that Armenians have committed against Turks. We make the case of racism and discrimination against Turks. We talk about Khojaly episodes. We talk about how Armenians have committed genocides throughout history.

We publicize the genocides the French or Belgium have committed. We mention the way they treat their minorities. We tell how they refuse to face THEIR history. We mention how they have always externalized their own barbarity upon people of other races including the Turks. We talk about how they project their own hatred as well as guilt unto their minorities.

The last but not the least, we talk about how the civilized Swiss Banks still have millions and possibly billions of dollars that actually belonged to the Holocaust victims. Blood diamonds. Whose wealth are THEY sitting on right now?

Etc, etc. So I may sympathize with a Turk who lives in France or Switzerland ONLY because of their bans on free speech. But even THEY can do many things....

- "I'm not going to give direct answers to your questions because I haven't checked carefully the links that you studied or the link regarding this case, which seem to be contradicting each other."

They are not contradicting with each other... The text I posted was the "legal ground" (I do not know if this is the correct terminology. What I mean is the "gerekçe" part of the ruling) of the ruling. What posted was the final verdict part of the ruling (presented in Le Monde newspaper I guess), both of which are parts of the full text of the court ruling, the english and french versions of which can be found at:

I am assuming these texts are authentic...Yeah it seems I was wrong/hasty at some points... The court ruling was made in 1995 so the three documents presented to the court were about a decade old not 20 years at that time...

"(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a
report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide. (Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000)."

Unfortunately, UN spokesman made this comment in 2000, 5 years after the year of the said ruling. It could have changed the outcome of the trial...The ruling says that Mr.Lewis was sentenced to pay the trial costs of the plaintiffs...I do not know whether he appealed to a higher court or not...

I agree with your comments but they are the stronger party and they make the rules...That's why we have no other option than to play the game by their rules...If you ask them, their countries are the paragons of democracy and human rights...What they really are is that they are good diplomats and public relations experts in that their bad traits/mistreatments are not allowed to be voiced out strongly whereas their glory and good traits are emphasized all the time...They even created or encouraged foundation of NGOs and CBOs that work to that end, due to which they are able to claim that they are not government propagandas as they are pronounced by non-governmental organisations, universities etc...

Recently, fire broke out in 2 apartment buildings, the residents of which were mostly German-Turks. There are allegations that the fires were result of racism based arsonism...And it was recently reported in the news that someone started to leave matchboxes accompanied with a threat note in mailboxes of some German-Turks...But we do not see much uproar about this in the western media and the German government as well as some western press try to dismiss these as allegations and opt to emphasize that no evidence of arsonism was found (whereas no electrical wiring fault was found either)...On the other hand, I've read some comments left by readers in newspaper websites that suggest that the German-Turks, being poor, may have failed to conduct periodic repairs on electrical wiring in the apartments or that they may have tried to mess with the wiring to draw illegal electricity from the lines etc...But there was an uproar in some of the ultra-nationalist German media when Turkey requested to send its own fire experts for a joint investigation...I guess this request was accepted eventually and I am waiting for the official report anyway...

What we lack is NGOs founded by local Turks operating in western/European states that will analyze western/European history, ignore their good traits, focus on, find out and then emphasize the bad traits of the western/european culture and civilization in the past and in present and make enormous publications, protests, lawsuits etc in this regard...Then we would see whether they are as righteous as they say...

- I haven't ever written on this site even though I joined quite some time ago. I haven't seen the transcripts which you mention in relation to the trial of Bernard Lewis suffice it to say it was in a "French Court" I get on my soap box about the French but I will sum up their character and ideals of Justice in two words, "Rainbow Warrior". Google that name and see how the French Government sanctioned a terrorist attack by French Government agents against an unarmed peace activist vessel and MURDERED an unarmed man. When their agents were caught charged and convicted on trial by the New Zealand Criminal Justice system. The French Govt put pressure on New Zealand via the World Trade Organisation, in hindering their exports to Europe so that the New Zealanders would release these MURDERERS. They spent something like 18 months jail for the conviction of Manslaughter.

Now I'll get off my soap box and suggest all that the French Court (in the lewis case) needed to decide was there a valid law prohibiting the alleged genocide denial or not. If the law was vaild then the next question is did Lewis deny the alleged and fallacious genocide allegation on French soil. That is all that they would need to consider and determine. Not make factual findings of whether or not a genocide actually occurred. Lewis should have taken that matter to the ECHR however these things cost money etc etc and the most amount of injustice occurs in the lower Jurisdictions because it is far more cost effective or expedient for some one to cop a fine then fight it all the way which would costs thousands of dollars or back in those days "Francs".

I don't know whether that makes sense or not I just typed all that off the top of my head without really reviewing what I wrote.

- I would believe that...Unfortunately, Turkey at the moment does not have a strong and resolute government who can stand up to such kind of mis-treatment...on the contrary, the current government is dependent on mostly US and partially EU support to stay in power (tough it boasts about having acquired 47% of the votes in the elections), hence they do not issue any protests to such double-standards...They rather try to suppress those in the country who voice out protests in those regards...

- Here is what I found on the permanent people's tribunal verdict, which was presented as "evidence" during Bernard Lewis' trial (which was held "before" the ban on denying Armenian Genocide came to force in France) (I have extracted only a part of the verdict...A longer yet still partial version is available at: )

The permanent peoples' tribunal in session paris, friday april 13, 1984

following is a report of the verdict of the tribunal of the people on questions placed before it relating to the armenian genocide.

The tribunal of the people opened april 13, 1984 at 2:15 p.M. In thecardinal richelieu amphitheater of the sorbonne, in paris, france.

Members of the permanent peoples' tribunal comprising the jury for the session on the genocide of the armenians include:

• madjid benchikh of algeria, professor of international law, university of algiers.
• george casalis of france, theologian, writer and professor, protestant institute of theology, france.
• harold edelstam of sweden, former ambassador to chile and algeria.
• richard falk of the united states, professor of international law, princeton university.
• ken frye of australia, member of parliament, australia.
• andreas giardina of italy, professor of international law, university of rome.
• sean macbride of ireland, jurist, president international peace office, nobel peace prize recipient.
• leo matarasso of france, jurist and lawyer at the paris bar.
• adolfo perez esquival of argentina, nobel peace prize recipient, coordinator, peace & justice service.
• james petras of the united states, professor of sociology, state university of new york.Francois rigaux of belgium, professor, faculty of law, catholic university of louvain.
• agit roy of india, economist and journalist.
• george wald of the united states, biologist, harvard university, nobel prize recipient.

( Yep, no historians among the jurors, but plenty nobel prize winners:))

This centrality of genocide to the works of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal is embodied in its basic framework of law set forth in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (Algiers, 4 July 1976).

...Particularly relevant in this regard are the charges of deliberate destruction, desecration, and neglect of Armenian cultural monuments and religious buildings.

The Tribunal adopts the view that the charge of the crime of genocide remains a present reality to be examined and, if established, to be appropriately and openly acknowledged by leaders of the responsible state.

The victims of a crime of genocide are entitled to legal relief even after this great lapse of time, although this relief must necessarily reflect present circumstances.

Here, also, the attitudes of the Armenian survivors and their descendants are also relevant. Any people rightfully insist and seek a formal recognition by legal authorities of crimes and injustices found to have been committed at their expense. The more extreme the injustice and the longer it is covered up, the more profound is this longing for recognition. The Tribunal notes with regret that the frustration arising from this denial of acknowledgement has seemingly contributed to the recourse to terroristic acts against Turkish diplomats and others.

The hope of the Tribunal is to facilitate a constructive process of coming to terms with the Armenian reality, which may lead to a resolution or moderation of the conflict that may arise from it....

I. Historical Introduction
...Following the disappearance of the last Armenian kingdom, the greater part of "Armenia fell under Turkish domination, while the Eastern regions were under the control first of Persia, then of the Russians, who annexed them in the nineteenth century. (F?rat: What about Byzantines ???!!!)...

...A revolutionary movement began to develop within the Armenian community (Dashnak and Hunchak parties). Following the Sasun insurrection in 1894, approximately 300,000 () Armenians were massacred in the eastern provinces and in Constantinople on the orders of Sultan Abdul Hamid. Protests by the (Entente) Powers led to more promises of reforms which, again, were never kept; the guerilla ('fedayis') struggle continued. From the turn of the century onward, Armenian revolutionaries also began to cooperate with the Young Turk party in the definition of a federalist plan for the Empire. Following the hopes generated by the constitutional revolution of 1908 Young Turk ideology, under pressure of the exercise of power and external events as well as from the radical wing of the movement, began to develop toward a form of exclusive nationalism which found expression in Pan-Turkism and Turanism.

At the Eighth Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation at Erzerum in August 1914, the Dashnak party rejected Young Turk requests to engage in subversive action among the Russian Armenians. From the beginning of the war, the Turkish Armenians behaved in general as loyal subjects, signing up with the Turkish army. (F?rat: The said Dashnak resolution should have been cited here)

The Russian Armenians, on their side, were routinely conscripted into the Russian Army and sent to fight on the European fronts. In the first months of the war, Russian Armenians enrolled with volunteer corps which acted as scouts for the Tsarist army - the Russian answer to the plan Turks had submitted to Armenians in Erzerum some months earlier. The Erzerum refusal and the formation of these volunteer battalions were used as arguments by the Young Turks to allege Armenian treachery. (F?rat: Wrong, some of such scouts were Ottoman-Armenians, and also some defected to the Russian side).

Enver, who had been appointed Supreme Commander of Turkish forces, achieved a breakthrough into Transcaucasia in the middle of winter, but was defeated at Sarkamish as much by the weather conditions as by the Russian army. Of the Turkish Third Army's 90,000 men, only 15,000 remained. In the depressed aftermath of the defeat in the Caucasus, the anti-Armenian measures began.

Beginning in January 1915, Armenians soldiers and gendarmes were disarmed, regrouped in work brigades of 500 to 1,000 men, put to work on road maintenance or as porters, then taken by stages to remote areas and executed. It was not until April that the implementation of a plan began, with successive phases carried out in a disciplined sequence. ( Supporting documents ???)

The signal was first given for deportation to begin in Zeytun ( was it? As far as I know, relocation was first applied to Erzurum, Bitlis and Van) in early April, in an area of no immediate strategic importance ( except for being a base for revolutionists?). It was not until later that deportation measures were extended to the border provinces.

The pretext used to make the deportation a general measure was supplied by the resistance of the Armenians of Van. The Vali of Van, Jevdet, sacked outlying Armenian villages and the Van Armenians organized the self-defense of the city. ( It was the revolutionists who first had the Ottoman-Armenian mayor of Van murdered by his own son, who was loyal to the empire)

They were saved by a Russian breakthrough spearheaded by the Armenian volunteers from the Caucasus. After taking Van on May 18th, the Russians continued to press forward but were halted in late June by a Turkish counter-offensive. The Armenians of the vilayet of Van were thus able to retreat and escape extermination.

When the news of the Van revolt reached Constantinople, the Union and Progress (Ittihad) Committee seized the opportunity. Some 650 persons-writers, poets, lawyers, doctors, priests and politicians were imprisoned on April 24th and 25th, 1915, then deported and murdered in the succeeding months. ( if they were deported, how were they murdered and by whom?)

The execution of the plan was entrusted to a 'special organization' (SO), made up of common criminals and convicts trained and equipped by the Union and Progress Committee. This semi-official organization, led by Behaeddin Shakir, was under the sole authority of the Ittihad Central Committee. ( the document tries to draw an parallel b/w Tes,kilat-? Mahsusa and the SS here)

Constantinople issued directives to the valis, kaymakans, as well as local SO men, who had discretionary powers to have moved or dismissed any uncooperative gendarme or official.

The methods used, the order in which towns were evacuated, and the routes chosen for the columns of deportees all confirm the existence of a centralized point of command controlling the unfolding of the program. Deportation orders were announced publicly or posted in each city and township. Families were allowed two days to collect a few personal belongings; their property was confiscated or quickly sold off. ( supporting documents?)

The first move was generally the arrest of notables, members of Armenian political parties, priests, and young men, who were forced to sign fabricated confessions then discreetly eliminated in small groups. ( supporting documents?)

The convoys of deportees were made up of old people, women, and children. In the more remote villages, families were slaughtered and their homes burned or occupied. On the Black Sea coast and along the Tigris near Diarbekir boats were heaped with victims and sunk. ( supporting evidence, why contaminate a water supply?, why not burn them for instance? What about those downstream using that water?)

From May to July 1915, the eastern provinces were sacked and looted by Turkish soldiers and gendarmes, SO gangs ('chetes'), etc. This robbery, looting, torture, and murder were tolerated or encouraged while any offer of protection to the Armenians was severely punished by the Turkish authorities. ( did the central government really have jurisdiction in these areas when most of the regular security units were at the fronts, why no mention of the Dardanelles war with ANZACs or the war with Russians in Eastern fronts at that time? Why only mention Russian front???)

It was not possible to keep the operation secret. Alerted by missionaries and consuls, the Entente Powers enjoined the Turkish government, from May 24, to put an end to the massacres, for which they held members of the government personally responsible. Turkey made the deportation official by issuing a decree, claiming treason, sabotage, and terrorist acts on the part of the Armenians as a pretext. ( supporting documents?)

Of the seven eastern vilayets' original population of 1,200,000 ( Ottoman records show that the Armenian population in Anatolia was about 1,250,000 in 1915 and was about 900,000-1,000,000 in seven provinces) Armenians, approximately 300,000 (I read somewhere that the first government of Democratic Republic of Armenia established in 1918 had to manage about 380,000 refugees arriving from Anatolia) were able to take advantage of the Russian occupation to reach the Caucasus; the remainder were murdered where they were or deported, the women and children (about 200,000 in number) kidnapped. Not more than 50,000 survivors reached the point of convergence of the convoys of deportees in Aleppo. ( Supporting documents? The verdict claims that 1,200,000 – 300,000 – 200,000 – 50,000 = 650,000 were murdered directly or indirectly. However, the ottoman archive documents give about 350,000 survivors out of a total of 450,000 relocated…???)

The deportees were driven south in columns which were decimated en route. ( supporting documents???) From Aleppo, survivors were sent on toward the deserts of Syria in the south to and of Mesopotamia in the southeast. In Syria, reassembly camps were set up at Hama, Homs, and near Damascus. These camps accommodated about 120,000 refugees, the majority of whom survived the war and were repatriated to Cilicia in 1919. ( Contradiction, a few paragraphs earlier, it was claiming that only 50,000 survived deportation to Aleppo…?)

Along the Euphrates, on the other hand, the Armenians were driven ever onward toward Deir-el-Zor; approximately 200,000 (??) reached their destination. Between March and August 1916, orders came from Constantinople to liquidate the last survivors remaining in the camps along the railway and the banks of the Euphrates. ( what are the supporting documents, could they be the famous secret Talat Pasha telegrams, which were proven to be forgeries and were not even introduced as evidence in the Tehlirian trial, the assassin of Talat Pasha in Germany?)

There were nevertheless still some Armenians remaining in Turkey. A few Armenian families in the provinces, Protestants and Catholics for the most part, had been saved from death by the American missions and the Apostolic Nuncio ( Protestant and Catholic Ottoman-Armenians were exempt from relocation unless they were proven to be participating with the revolutionists, no mention of that either…)
i. In some cases, Armenians had been spared as a result of resolute intervention by Turkish officials, or had been hidden by Kurdish or Turkish friends.

The Armenians of Constantinople and Smyrna also escaped deportation. ( Escaped !!?? They were mostly not subjected to relocation !!!) Lastly, there were cases of resistance (Urfa, Shabin-Karahisar, Musa-Dagh). In all, including those who took refuge in Russia, the number of survivors at the end of 1916 can be estimated at 600,000 out of an estimated total population in 1914 of 1,800,000, according to A. Toynbee. ( Contradiction again !? Now it previously said that there were about 300,000 refugees who made it to Russia and about 120,000 survivors out of those relocated, which adds up to 420,000…Now it is saying about 600,000 survived according to Toynbee, the famous author of the war propaganda document called the British Blue Book.)

In Eastern Anatolia, the entire ( ?????!!!!) Armenian population had disappeared. A few survivors of the slaughter ( ???? !!!!) took refuge in Syria and Lebanon, while others reached Russian Armenia. In April 1918, in order to circumvent provisions of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk stipulating that Bolshevik Russia cede Batum, Kars, and Ardahan to Turkey, Transcaucasia declared independence, forming a short-lived Federation which was to break up into three republics in May 1918: Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

The Treaty of Sèvres (August 10, 1920), which recognized the Armenian state and ratified the frontiers drawn by President Wilson, did not, however, settle the issue. This Treaty, which was signed by the government in Constantinople and which shared out large sections of Anatolia to the Italians, the British, and the French as well as favoured the Greeks in the Aegean Sea, was unacceptable to Mustafa Kemal, who rejected it. ( The Ottoman-Sultan Vahideddin did not ratify it nor could the Ottoman parliament in Constantinople as it was closed down by the British occupying the seat of the empire…It was not only Mustafa Kemal who rejected it but the renegade Ankara-government as well…The above given paragraph conceals or is ignorant of some facts and is therefore misleading….)

The Republic of Armenia under the leadership of the socialist Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak) was soon caught in a vice between the Kemalist offensive and Bolshevik Russia. When, on November 20,1920, President Wilson officially set forth the territorial limits of the new state, the collapse of the Republic was only a few days off. The vilayets of Kars and Ardahan were retaken by Turkey (Treaty of Alexandropol) and what remained of Armenia (approximately 30,000 sq. km.) became Soviet on December 2, 1920. ( No mention of the Democratic Republic of Armenia government consenting to handing over the power to Russia in return for protection against the Ankara-government [With whom they already concluded the Alexandropol treaty before they handed over the power to Russia], or the Kars Treaty signed soon after b/w Turkish Republic and Soviet Russia, which superceded the Alexandropol treaty, as if it was an attempt to leave Turkey alone in the overall picture, while mentioning Russia as less as possible…)

A "near-exhaustive bibliography" of these sources has been drawn up by Professor R.G. Hovannisian, The Armenian Holocaust, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.

"Not counting the Ottoman archives-which are inaccessible-the main documents are as follows:"

• The German archives, which in view of the status of Germany as ally of the Ottoman Empire, are of prime significance. Especially worthy of note are the reports and eyewitness observations of Johannes Lepsius, of Dr. Armin Wegner, of the charitable organization 'Deutscher Hilfsbund', of Dr. Jacob Kunzler, of the journalist Stuermer, of Dr. Martin Niepage, of the missionary Ernst Christoffel, and of General Liman von Sanders; the latter related how the Armenian populations of Smyrna and Andrinopolis were spared as a result of his resolute personal intervention.

• The reports of German diplomatic and consular personnel who were eyewitnesses of the conditions of the dispersion of the Armenians at Erzerum, Aleppo, Samsun, etc.

• The American archives, which also contained very ample material in confirmation of the above (reports by missionaries, consuls, and charities) and 'Internal Affairs of Turkey, 1910-1919, Race Problems', StateDepartment, and the memoirs of the of the American Ambassador in Constantinople, Henry Morgenthau. ( Yeah, the American archives in which the British could not find any concrete incriminating evidence against the Ottoman officials detained in Malta…)

• The British authorities' Blue Book on these events, published in 1916 by Viscount Bryce. ( Blue Book, how impartial or verifiable is that? Did the tribunal contemplate on that or did they just regard it at face value???)
• The minutes of the Trial of the Unionists (Ittihadists) on charges brought by the Turkish government following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. ( which was held while the seat of Empire was under British occupation and control, at the end of which about 60 of the defendants made up of government and military officials were sentenced to death penalty and about 200 to varying penalties, even tough the British were unable to find incriminating evidence sound enough against those detained in Malta themselves…)

Please SEE: ( The introduction part has vital info such that the British assigned several Armenians to search the archives for evidence against the Ottoman officials and particularly, that the Ottoman Foreign Ministry appealed to 5 European states to form an investigation commission regarding allegations of genocide on Ottoman Armenians…There are correspondences (from British archives) b/w those states and Britain officials given therein that proves that the Ottomans’ attempts to that end was blocked by the British as it could have disrupted the conditions of the Mudros treaty, or more clearly, would weaken the entente’s position with respect to the Ottomans…)

• The reports submitted to the Tribunal by four survivors of the massacres who lived through the events as children. ( some of which were pure hearsay and would have no value at a proper court of law. For example, former Turkish official Cemal is supposed to have testified that Ankara's CUP delegate Necati had told him that the time had come to begin "the extermination of local Armenians."[83] Similar hearsay evidence is contained in the indictment of the main trial. The Turkish official Ihsan Bey had heard Abdulahad Nuri Bey, the Aleppo representative of the deportations committee, say: "I have taken up contact with Talaat Bey and have personally received the orders of extermination."[84] In the absence of cornoboration from other reliable sources, it seems difficult to consider this testimony evidence in any meaningful sense of the term.)

The Turks claim that the consequences of the 'transfer' were on a much smaller scale, resulting in the disappearance of 20-25 percent of the population due to generally poor wartime conditions. The Turkish state also points out that (the) losses were heavy on the Muslim side. This argument appears to overlook the fact that Armenians have almost entirely disappeared from Anatolia ( They said 600,000 survived earlier themselves, now they are claiming that Armenians have almost entirely disappeared??!!!!). The population of Turkey is currently about 45 million, of whom less than 100,000 are Armenians ( The Armenians were so eager to accuse Turks of forcibly-converting Ottoman-Armenians into muslims, why did they not mention that at that time???).

In order to shift responsibility away from itself, the Turkish government alleges that Armenians committed acts of sedition and of treason in time of war. However, the Tribunal has found that the only armed actions undertaken within the Ottoman Empire were the Sassun revolt and the resistance of Van in April 1915. ( Clearly, the tribunal was ignorant or in refusal of several accounts of guerrilla warfare and terrorism committed by Armenian-revolutionists in Anatolia…)

A further argument advanced by the Turkish state is the accusation that it was the Armenians who supposedly committed genocide against the Turks. It is true that in 1917 (i.e. more than a year after the deportation and extermination of the Armenians was completed) a number of Turkish villages were annihilated by Armenian troops. The Tribunal considers that these acts,
however blameworthy, cannot be considered as genocide ( Why???!!!). Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that these acts were committed some considerable time after the mass slaughter suffered by the Armenians.

Lastly, the Turkish state rejects the charge of premeditation, impugning the authenticity of the five telegrams sent by the Minister of the Interior, Talaat, which were certified as authentic by experts appointed by the Court at the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian at Berlin-Charlottenburg in 1921. ( The fake telegrams again…As far as I know they were not introduced to the court as evidence in Tehlirian trial as well…Please See Below)

VON GORDON — At least I would like to mention the contents of these telegrams. The telegrams prove that Talaat personally gave the orders to massacre alt the Armenians including women and children. Originally the order was given to spare only those children who were too young to remember what had happened to their parents. However, in March 1916 this order was rescinded as it was felt that these children could, in the future, turn out to be a dangerous element in the community.

The witness Andonian can testify to the authenticity of these telegrams. He obtained them directly from the office of the Vice- governor of Aleppo after the British occupation. Then he placed them atthe disposal of the Armenian Delegation.

I personally feel it is important, essential in fact, that the Jurors accept the defendant’s belief that Talaat was the responsible party and the author of the Armenian Genocide. If the Jurors are willing to accept this, then I am willing to waive the reading of these telegrams.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY — I feel that the motion should be denied. Even though great latitude was granted to discuss this subject, nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this body, nor is it within its competence, to come to a historic decision pertaining to the guilt or innocence of Talaat and the extent of his involvement in the massacre of the Armenians. The essential
point is that the defendant believed that Talaat was the responsible party
and thus the motive becomes fully clear.

VON GORDON –In view of the position taken by the District Attorney and the effect it has bad on the jurors, I would like to cance my motion to have these telegrams read in the record.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY —I believe that takes care of this point…

........In 1971, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights asked its Sub-Committee on the fight against discriminatory measures and the protection of minorities, comprising independent experts, to undertake a 'study of the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.'

In 1973 and 1975, the two interim reports which were submitted to the Sub-Committee by the special rapporteur contained a paragraph 30 which read as follows: 'In modern times, attention should be drawn to the existence of fairly abundant documentation relating to the massacre of the Armenians, considered as the first genocide of the twentieth century.'

In the final report submitted to the Commission in 1979, the aforementioned paragraph 30 was omitted.

The Commission's Chairman observed that the omission had given rise to such a wave of protest that its effects were assuming proportions which had possibly not been anticipated by the author. He therefore invited the rapporteur, when putting the finishing touches to his report, to bear in mind this reaction and statements made by the Commission delegates following the omission..( the troublesome Whitaker Report…which was not “approved” by the said UN commission at all…)

In this connection, the Tribunal draws special attention to the fact that by virtue of Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, the aforementioned state entered into an obligation as early as 1878 to assign the Armenian people within the Ottoman Empire a regime guaranteeing its right to flourish in a climate of security under the supervision of the international community. ( that does not give them any legitimacy to pursue revolt and rebellion…)

The Tribunal also notes that promises of self determination which were made to the Armenian people at the time of the First World War were not kept, since the international community unduly permitted the disappearance of an Armenian state which in principle had been clearly recognized both by the Allied and associated Powers and by Turkey in the Treaty of Batum. ( Batum treaty was superceded by other treaties and therefore should be void…I guess..)

There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal.

In its examination of the case the Tribunal has focused primarily on the massacres perpetrated between 1915 and 1917, which were the most extreme example of a policy which was clearly heralded by the events of 1894-1896.

The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948. ( It appears the verdict was based primarily on Talat Pasha telegrams provided by Andonian….)

On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. ( without foundation ????)

It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification.

For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact. ( Turkish or Ottoman authorities ???)

c) The Consequences of the Genocide
Apart from the question of penalties, genocide is furthermore a violation of the law of nations for which the Turkish state ( Turkish state or the non-existent Ottoman Empire ???) must assume responsibility. Its first duty arising from this position lies in a basic obligation incumbent upon it to admit the facts without seeking to dissemble and to deplore the commission of this act.

This in itself would constitute minimal redress for the incalculable moral injury suffered by the Armenian nation.

The Tribunal wishes to draw special attention to the fact that international practice as applied to the Turkish state since the time of these events affords sufficient legal basis to establish that the identity and continuity of this state have not been affected by the upheavals in the country's history since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Neither its territorial losses nor the reorganization of its political system have been such as to detract from its continued identity as a subject of the law of nations. Consequently, it cannot be considered that successive Turkish governments since the constitution of a Kemalist republic are justified in refusing to assume a responsibility which remains with the state they represent in the international community.

The Tribunal further notes that nothing in the statements or conduct of the Armenian people or of the states sharing the responsibility of safeguarding its rights can be interpreted as implying their waiver of the blame attaching to those guilty of the genocide. Like its predecessors, the present Turkish government is therefore bound to assume this responsibility.

As a result, and as is indeed confirmed by the special obligations of the international community toward the Armenian people, any member of this community has the right to call the Turkish state to account regarding its obligations, and in particular, to elicit official recognition of the genocide should this state persist in denying it, and is furthermore authorized to take any measure of aid and assistance on behalf of the Armenian people as provided by the law of nations and the Declaration of Algiers, without being accused in so doing of illicit interference in the affairs of another state.

This responsibility implies first and foremost the obligation to recognize officially the reality of this genocide and the consequent damages suffered by the Armenian people;

The United Nations Organization and each of its members have the right to demand this recognition and to assist the Armenian people to that end.


It follows from the [deliberations of the Tribunal] that:

5. This responsibility assumes mainly the obligation to **make reparations for the moral and material harm** to which the Armenian nation was subjected;

6. Every member of the international community has the right to demand sanctions for the moral and material harm to which the Armenian nation was subjected;

7. The United Nations has the obligation, based both on the general rules of international law to self-determination and on the particular responsibilities which weigh upon the Powers since the Treaty of Berlin, to 'watch over the fate of Armenia', according to the Assembly of the League of Nations, and to take all necessary measures to respect its rights.

***Excerpted from A Crime of Silence, The Armenian Genocide – Permanent People's Tribunal, p209, Zed Books, London, 1985.

The above given verdict was issued mostly based on Talat Pasha telegrams and in absence of Ottoman Archive documents (due to Turkey's failure to present them most probably)....And it was later on used as evidence in Bernard Lewis trial in 1995 i.e. 11 years later...And it appears that the French court regarded this document (as well as the Whitaker report) at face value without feeling the need to check the veracity of the assertions made therein...If his case were appealed at a higher court accompanied with evidences disproving the telegrams and the whitaker report, which formed the basis of people's tribunal verdict, he would most likely have been acquitted....Pity...


Post a Comment

The form below could be used for:
# Anonymous Dob In Line,
# your comments & feedback,
# pasting your several pageful of articles to be published here at this site.

# also leave your name & email address, if you want to be contacted
# and write "Confidential" at the top and bottom of your message if you do not want your comment or feedback to to be published here

Anonymous Posting Details:
(We publish Your IP address & tracking info if anonymous)
After entering your text in the comment box,
Please select profile as "Anonymous" within the "Comment As" DropDown Menu, or just select Name/URL & enter your name or your web address,

Then publish it by clicking on the "POST COMMENT" button, below.