EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU-ARMENIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE. MINUTES of the TWELFTH MEETING. 2-3 November 2011.

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU-ARMENIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE MINUTES of the TWELFTH MEETING 2-3 November 2011 Yerevan CONTENT 1. Welcome address by Mr Hovik ABRAHAMYAN, Chairman of the National 2 Assembly of the Republic of Armenia 2. Opening remarks by the Co-Chairs of the EU-Armenia PCC 2 3. Adoption of the draft agenda 3 4. Adoption of the minutes of the eleventh meeting of the EU-Armenia PCC held in Brussels on 1-2 December The state of play of relations between the EU and Armenia 3 - Political dialogue - Implementation of the ENP Action Plan - Negotiations on the EU-Armenia Association Agreement - Eastern Partnership - Mobility Partnership, Visa Facilitation and Readmission Agreements - DCFTA negotiations Statements by: - The Government of Armenia - The European Union 6. Political developments, reforms agenda in Armenia and EU-Armenia cooperation 5 - Political dialogue and last developments in Armenia - Reforms agenda in Armenia and EU-Armenia - The fight against corruption 7. Regional issues 9 - The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - Regional cooperation and Armenia s participation in the multilateral track of the Eastern Partnership - Armenia-Turkey relations 8. Follow-up of the Final Statement and Recommendations adopted at the eleventh meeting of the EU-Armenia PCC held in Brussels on 2-3 December Dialogue with representatives of the civil society Adoption of the Final Statement and Recommendations Any other business Date and place of next meeting 16 ANNEX: List of participants PV\EN.doc 1 PE

2 The 12th EU- Armenia PCC under Co-Chairmanship of Mrs. Naira Zohrabyan and Mr. Milan Cabrnoch started at 15:20. Points 1, 2 of the Agenda Mrs. Naira Zohrabyan, welcoming the committee members announced the opening of the 12 th meeting and yielded the floor to Mr. Hovik Abrahamyan, President of the National Assembly of Armenia. Mr. Hovik Abrahamyan, the President of the National Assembly welcomed the guests mentioning that the delegation of the European Parliament is for the first time in Yerevan after the elections and wished success in the forthcoming works of the committee. Mr. Abrahamyan mentioned that the committee composed of the members of the European Parliament and the Parliament of Armenia established twelve years ago with the purpose of political dialogue managed to contribute to the creation of the joint agenda for Armenia and European Union due to its consistent work. He further mentioned that the European direction and approximation with the European Union are one of the priorities for the internal and external policies of Armenia and its authorities focus their contribution on the importance of the issues included at the current stage of European Union Armenia cooperation agenda. These issues are found in particular in the domains of external policy, democracy, economic integration, mobility, human rights and energy. Mr. Abrahamyan dwelled upon the negotiation process of the Association Agreement mentioning that the nineteen chapters have been negotiated and provisionally closed. The President of the National Assembly briefly introduced the legislative work performed during the year, particularly dwelling upon the Electoral Code, and the new law on the Freedom of Assembly. Speaking about the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, the President of the N.A. mentioned that this assembly is the parliamentary tool of the Eastern Partnership policy, which shall create the necessary conditions to bring forward the political association and economic integration between the European Union and Eastern partners. The Euronest shall not be able to fully perform its activities if instead of the issues concerning development of the regional cooperation only issues regarding conflicts are continuously brought forward. Mr. Abrahamyan also stated that the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia was among the first that responded to the establishment of Euronest and that it promptly started activities necessary for this purpose. Mr. Abrahamyan concluded by expressing the hope that the meeting of the committee would be held in a constructive atmosphere and be marked by mutual understanding. Mr. Milan Cabrnoch, the co-chair of EU-Armenia parliamentary cooperation committee, welcomed the committee members. Mr Cabrnoch thanked for the friendly welcome and stressed the importance of the dialogue in parliamentary format. He pointed out that many of the people present also participated in the works of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, which was also an important platform for cooperation. Stressing the importance of the meeting, the Co-chair mentioned that the presence of a broad set of representatives of the political factions in the European Parliament (EP) proved the importance given to the mentioned relations. He expressed confidence that the outcome of this dialogue would serve as good grounds for deepening further cooperation. He pointed out that the EP delegation considered Armenia a part of Europe and that it would focus its contributions on the importance of the development of relations in all domains. Mr. Cabrnoch mentioned the Association Agreement, the creation of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), visa PV\EN.doc 2 PE

3 facilitation and readmission, as well as the issues related to mobility of people, as topical issues. Discussions on these issues were at different stages of development. Conclusion and application of agreements would represent great progress in mutual relations. Mr Cabrnoch added that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would undoubtedly also be touched upon, stressing that the EP supports the Minsk group format of conflict regulation. The current status quo was no longer acceptable. Mr. Cabrnoch mentioned that the EU wished to intensify its efforts, without in any way calling into question the activity of the Minsk group. Mr Cabrnoch stressed that the EU would support free and fair conduct of the upcoming elections in Armenia, which would make their results accepted by the international society and the Armenian people. He considered that the atmosphere in the dialogue made it perfect for significantly bringing forward the relations. Mr. Cabrnoch pointed out that the bilateral relations should be made deeper to contribute to human rights, democracy and economic development for the beautiful country Armenia. Points 3, 4, 5 of the Agenda Mrs Naira Zohrabyan suggested the adoption of the draft Agenda for the meeting and of the minutes of the 11th EU-Armenia PCC meeting, held on 1-2 December in Brussels. Discussions followed the adoption of the documents. Mr. Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, emphasized the parliamentary platform of cooperation and dialogue, pointing out that quite positive dynamics is observed in this field. He briefly touched upon the joint activities and mutual visits during the last year. With regard to the political dialogue between Armenia and the European Union Mr. Mnatsakanyan stressed the importance of the comprehensive reforms, set out first of all in the strategy of the reforms undertaken by the President of Armenia. These reforms related to all spheres of the institutional establishment of Armenia, particularly to the democratic institutions and administration system and the trade and economic system. They also concerned the social area. With regard to the negotiations of an Association Agreement, Mr. Mnatsakanyan noted that this agreement would replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and provide a new legal basis for the relations between Armenia and the European Union. Mr. Mnatsakanyan pointed out that the Association Agreement was a complicated document which would oblige the Armenian side to amend its legislation. He emphasized the interconnection between ongoing reforms in Armenia and the negotiations of the Association Agreement. He stated that the Armenian side was satisfied with the dynamics of negotiations and that the negotiations on 19 parts of the Agreement had already been concluded. The most topical issue was implementation of measures in Armenia related to the DCFTA. Mr Mnatsakanyan drew attention to the need for reforms inter alia in the phyto-sanitary, intellectual property and customs spheres. People-to-people contacts were the next important issue. Inter-governmental, as well as parliamentary cooperation displayed positive dynamics, though promotion of the cooperation between the societies. Bringing the societies closer to each other was extremely important. PV\EN.doc 3 PE

4 Mr. Mnatsakanyan also dwelled upon the progress in mutual relations and furtherance in these relations through financial tools. The National Indicative Programme for the EU's assistance, as well as macroeconomic tools worked. The maximum efficient use of financial tools was extremely important for Armenia, as it stimulated the pace of the reforms. Mr. Mnatsakanyan also dwelled upon the multilateral cooperation platform, emphasizing that relations had clearly shaped frames, for example, the Eastern Partnership. He pointed out that Armenia participated in the Warsaw summit. It focused its contribution on the importance of that platform which in its turn shaped the logic of the cooperation in the regional context. Mr. Mnatsakanyan affirmed that the European colleagues played a significant role for the atmosphere in regional cooperation. Expressing gratitude to the chair, Mr Onno Simons, Head of the political, economic, press and information unit of the EU delegation to Armenia, dwelled in particular on the political dialogue and the Electoral Code. He stated that the amendments made in the Electoral Code in cooperation with the Venice Commission were welcome and expressed the hope that the upcoming elections in Armenia would be free and fair. International organizations and the European Union were planning support through the OSCE, mostly in the form of training for officials in the election administration. With regard to the events during the previous elections, Mr Simons noted the reports of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which stated that the chapter of these events could be considered closed for the Assembly, given an amnesty in 2011, a renewed impetus to investigate the events and the start of a dialogue between the Government and the opposition. Mr Simons noted progress on the independence of the judiciary and corruption and hoped that in the near future, there would be improvements also in other spheres. He mentioned a forthcoming visit of the EU high representative Baroness Ashton in Yerevan on November 2011 and that the political dialogue encompassing regional issues and internal policy would continue. With regard to the implementation of the ENP Action Plan, the EU was rendering aid to Armenia in the amount of 157 million Euros for the years This included the Comprehensive Institution Building Programme, which should facilitate reforms required by the Association Agreement. Mr. Simons said that the easier part of the negotiations had been finished and that the issues on which the parties had the most diverging positions remained. He expressed hope that it would be finalized within the upcoming months. With regard to the Eastern Partnership, Mr. Simons mentioned that it got impetus at the Warsaw summit, which in its turn had positive impact on the EU-Armenia relations, as well as on the relations between Armenia and its regional partners. Mr. Simons pointed out that an agreement to negotiate a mobility partnership had recently been reached and paved the way for efforts in the fields of visa facilitation and readmission. He hoped that a negotiation mandate would be adopted during the Polish EU Presidency, opening the way for the start of negotiations before the end of PV\EN.doc 4 PE

5 2011. In parallel, preparations for the introduction of biometric passports should be organized. Progress could be seen also in relation to the DCFTA. The Armenian Government had prepared a very ambitious Action plan and the start of negotiations before the end of the year could be envisaged. Mr. Simons dwelled upon a number of important issues which require reforms and are related to the tax and customs administration, the adoption of the strategy for the protection of intellectual property rights, the establishment of a new legal basis for food safety and compliance of the existing laws with international standards. Mr. Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, drew attention to the EU-Armenia human rights dialogue. Its third meeting would be held shortly. An equivalent arrangement did not exist in all of the countries in the region, Mr Mnatsakanyan noted. Point 6 of the Agenda Mrs. Naghdalyan gave an introduction to the work carried out the previous year. She spoke about second generation reforms that should create the best conditions for citizens and economic entities, as well as for the solution of social problems. Speaking about the fight against corruption, Mrs. Naghdalyan pointed out that it should be exercised in all spheres and that only a complex approach would be efficient. Mrs Naghdalyan mentioned that macro-financial and state governing institutions support projects within the undertaken responsibilities are especially important, as they have quite serious stimuli and the Action Plan of reforms on state debt management has been executed. With regard to the pension system the rapporteur pointed out that significant modifications had been made and a law on reforms had been adopted in the National Assembly. She stressed that Armenia has shifted to a cumulative pension system and described this as a giant step to European standards. Serious steps to improve the state's internal financial control process. At the moment, the draft law on financial management and control, as well as the conception of a law on financial inspectorate were being discussed. Considerable modifications had been made in the field of procurement policy and the procurement process had been fully decentralized. An appeal council with representation of public organizations had been established. Mrs. Naghdalyan pointed out that by law, the fiscal authorities were entities who serve the tax payers. Major activities in 2011 concerned ensuring precise, full and timely taxation of big businesses, increased transparency, definition of efficient tax burden for small businesses, application of soft fiscal administration, undertaking special steps for preventing corruption in tax authorities, etc. Mrs. Naghdalyan mentioned that the appeal system had been improved; results and decisions of all inspections were posted at the official site of tax authorities. The next steps would be full introduction of voluntary payment principle of tax liabilities and a new policy of tax inspections was also an important direction. Mrs Naghdalyan described this as a great work which was implemented in collaboration of the government and deputies. An automated selectivity system of risk management and tax payers subject to inspection was introduced. In 2011 PV\EN.doc 5 PE

6 a new law on organizing and conducting inspections had been adopted. Certain activities had been implemented in the direction of efficient management system of tax authorities. These activities were aimed at enhancement of the efficiency of the work of the respective staff. Significant progress had been registered also in the customs sphere Mrs. Naghdalyan underlined. Customs houses and customs stores had been technically re-equipped. Electronic customs declarations had been implemented as a result of which businessmen could electronically submit over 37 types of reports. This system contributed to saving time and reducing contact with the representatives of tax and customs authorities. With regard to the preparations of DCFTA negotiations, Mrs. Naghdalyan pointed out that certain activities were implemented, in accordance with the schedule approved by the Prime Minister on 10 August. She expressed hope that the Armenian side would be ready for opening of negotiations. In the fight against corruption, there was close cooperation with the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, GRECO, as a result of which an anti-corruption strategy was in force. A software on self-service kiosks, called Detalex, had been introduced, making it possible to render a number of services to the public online and to search for legal cases, payment of state tribute and necessary information about the legislation. Mrs Naghdalyan mentioned the justice accessibility program and that the 'single window' (single point of contact) principle had been introduced in the state registration field. Other laws adopted included a law on Limited Liability Companies and a law on State Registration of Legal Entities. Considerable modifications were also being made in the notary system and a compulsory auction software working according to the single window principle had been installed. Mrs. Edit Herczog described the EU as hit by two tsunamis: the financial and economic and the "Arab Spring. Budget cuts had become necessary, but the EP should support the planned 157 million in EU assistance to Armenia in the next two years. Mrs Herczog hoped that the Armenian side would as soon as possible make all the amendments to its legislation which were necessary for conclusion of the Association Agreement. She stressed the importance of Euronest, in the plenary session of which she had participated, and mentioned that the failure to adopt a document there was still being discussed in the European Parliament. She expressed gratitude to her Euronest colleagues, particularly Vahan Hovhannisyan and Artak Zakaryan for their work in relation to the Rules of Procedure. Mrs. Herczog hoped that the forthcoming Euronest meeting in Baku would end with the adoption of a document. She asked colleagues to comment upon the possible role of the EU in relation to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the efforts to solve this conflict made by the Minsk Group within the OSCE framework. Interference in those efforts should be avoided, but an approach that would make it possible for the EU and the countries in the region to avoid blockage of discussions in a regional format would have to be found. Speaking about the EU membership of her country, Hungary, Mrs Herczog pointed out that following the collapse of the USSR the countries were isolated and a long period of time was required to unite within the European Union. The historical, PV\EN.doc 6 PE

7 cultural and political heritage was a platform for cooperation which it was vital to preserve. Mrs. Herczog was interested in what the Armenian people, including women and young people, think about the EU. A policy for preventing that young people leave the country and creating conditions for return of young people should be developed. Mrs. Zohrabyan thanked Mrs. Herczog for the speech and mentioned that as she is also a member of Euronest delegation and also participated in the mentioned meeting, reminded that the Armenian side called for Euronest not to become a platform for new conflicts dividing lines. On the contrary, it should serve for cooperation and maintaining peace in the region. Mrs. Zohrabyan reminded the attendants that irrespective of the condition that everyone is stressing the importance of Euronest not only as a bilateral but as multilateral platform for cooperation, Azerbaijan, nevertheless, clearly mentioned in the presented addenda that they are for cooperation with the eastern partners, except for Armenia, in the fields of energy and economy. Mrs. Zohrabyan welcomed the European Commission's more for more formula, which should condition the EU support to the South Caucasus states. She mentioned that 83 percent of Armenians are in favour of European integration and see the position and role of Armenia within the European family. Mrs. Larisa Alaverdyan, expressed disagreement with some of the statements in the speeches of her colleagues, but said that there was no alternative for Armenia to European integration. There were some group interests which obstructed the steps towards integration. Mrs. Alaverdyan mentioned that though the legislative and law implementation practice can be estimated as positive in Armenia, nevertheless, the group interests and impact field monopolization hinder the development of the country, the poverty level in the country does not reduce, minimum wage does not cover the market basket and it is clear that the budget based on this cannot lead the country to development. Dwelling upon the plenary session of the Euronest parliamentary assembly, in which she was present, Mrs. Alaverdyan pointed out that in her opinion, the presence of the conflict should not be considered as a significant obstacle for the development of internal democracy and defense of human rights both in Armenia and Azerbaijan. For some possible changes, neither financial investment, nor final resolution of the conflict was necessary. Every Government should be held responsible for upholding elementary human rights standards by which it should prove its readiness for conflict resolution, as conflict resolution was only possible through respect of human rights, development of democracy and establishment of a legitimate state. Mrs. Naghdalyan pointed out that the rights of the opposition had been expanded, that the opposition had lawfully acquired the right for priority for speech, stating questions, as the opposition was the partaker in the political processes and had its role in the state building process. Mrs. Naghdalyan touched upon the issue of diversification of the economy. She pointed out that some days ago for the first time Republican Party s economic conference was held which was aimed at discussion of the problems available in the mentioned field. Reforms on pay and pension in Armenia were vital issues for the PV\EN.doc 7 PE

8 country and an attempt should be made to get back to pre-crisis indicators within the budget of the current year. Mrs. Naghdalyan also touched upon the more for more principle, mentioning that it was welcome, as countries would be assessed as per the progress made. Mr. Hovhannes Margaryan recalled that he had proposed the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh partners in last year's meeting of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee's with the rights to express their views and to vote. He noted that Inter-agency commission for cooperation with European institutions was set up two years ago, with representatives of all departments and ministries and the Secretary of the National Security Council, Mr. A. Baghdasaryan, as its Chairman. Mr. Margaryan also expressed gratitude to his European colleagues for the financial aid provided by the European Union to Armenia. He said that serious steps were undertaken in Armenia in the fight against corruption. He also focused on the fact of shifting to unified examination system for entering higher institutions, the possibility of state scholarship as a result of excellent performance, which also reduced corruption risks. Mr. Margaryan further introduced the official patronage. In this regard he stressed the importance on the fact that as a result of constitutional amendments, the Supervisory Board was no longer within the National Assembly and was planning to do research not only in the field of state owned property, but also in the field of community property. Mr. Margaryan stressed the importance of the establishment of the Ethics Committee. He spoke about the economic crisis that struck Armenia as well, pointing out that the country is not only in blockade but has no diplomatic relations with two of its four neighbours. Mr. Evgeni Kirilov referring to the speeches of his colleagues pointed out that the way Armenia is moving in was very complicated and that Armenia should get support to become more stable. Making reference to the speech of Mr. Simons, Mr. Kirilov stressed the importance of the negotiations between Armenia and the EU which assumes a new, higher level of cooperation. He pointed out that there would be difficulties on this way, mostly in the economic field and that it was important not to abandon this way. He stressed the importance of harmonisation of legislation, mentioning that another important stage follows the adoption of new laws, which is the implementation of the laws. In this regard he advised to apply the experience of the countries which had passed through this way. Mr. Kirilov stressed the importance of the Association Agreement negotiations; particularly the issues regarding justice, visa facilitation as the people should feel the support that is provided by the European Union. He also underlined the importance of the more for more principle. He expressed the hope that the forthcoming elections would be held compliant to the democratic principles. He said that according to the information he had, there were no representatives of the opposition in the Central Electoral Committee. He asked the Armenian side to provide a clarification on this issue. Mr. Hovhannes Margaryan answered that there were no parties in the Central Electoral Committee. Party representatives were involved in the precinct electoral committees, where source protocols and the results of the votes were formed. As per the Electoral Code, the members of the Electoral Committee and authorized representatives had the same authorities with only one difference: that the authorized representative had no responsibility regarding any issue. PV\EN.doc 8 PE

9 3 November 2011 The works of the meeting of the second day chaired by co-chair Milan Cabrnoch started at 9:00. Points 7, 8 of the Agenda Co-chair Mr Milan Cabrnoch welcomed the members of the committee and proposed to move on to the discussion of the questions in the agenda in turn. Co-chair referred to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, pointing out that the issue of conflict resolution had been in the center of discussions for many years and the European Union had several times stressed its interest, within the possible frames, to contribute to the resolution of such a complicated and regrettable issue and record progress regarding this issue. Expressing his agreement that the only possible solution to the conflict is through peace and without use of force, Mr. Cabrnoch pointed out that the current situation that lasts already for several years was unacceptable and having progress in this issue was in everyone's interest. He pointed to the need to respect the authority and work performed by the Minsk group and wondered whether the European Union and its member states had sufficient information on the progress and results of the negotiations. Mr. Cabrnoch added that the President, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Armenia in their meetings with the EP Delegation expressed their confidence in the Minsk group Mr. Armen Rustamyan spoke about the current stage of Minsk process, stressing that it had recurrently appeared in a whirlpool, mainly for the reason that Azerbaijan kept refusing to negotiate with the main side of the conflict, i.e. Nagorno- Karabakh, to resolve the issue which was the main reason for the conflict: the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan applied all means to avoid the resolution of the conflict. This was one of the major obstacles to enhancement of the effectiveness of the negotiation process. Moreover, Azerbaijan was trying to interpret the territories vs. status formula in its own way. In international practice it first of all assumed status clarification, and then a problem of territories, whereas as per Azerbaijan notion it was first of all immediate return of territories and only then agreement on the status which was an approach contradicting to international practice. Under the current conditions all the preliminary agreements, per se, became void and null, for example, resolution of the problem through package and not stage by stage manner. By saying package resolution we understand reaching consensus in part of all constituents of full conflict, then stage by stage implementation of the package as it is impossible to implement the whole package at once. Though, it is impossible to disagree that all the issues which were interconnected, i.e. status, territories, refugees, humanitarian issues, reinstatement, security etc. should be considered in one package, as one cannot be implemented without the resolution of the other. Mr. Rustamyan underlined that Azerbaijan from the three of the main principles within the package was constantly trying to give priority to one of the principles acceptable for it, thus subordinating others issues. This proved the non-negotiating position of Azerbaijan. According to the speaker, the problem was whether it would be possible to ensure the efficiency of the process and promote the resolution process, that it was necessary to precisely estimate the legal conformity and proportionality of the approaches of the conflict sides. Legal conformity, which was directly related to the requirements or major principle approaches that the sides presented, in essence, led to the following. The Azerbaijani side tried to return Nagorno-Karabakh and make it its part, in contradiction PV\EN.doc 9 PE

10 to the fact that such status was conditioned only by the existence of the Soviet Union and Azerbaijan was granted with such authority exclusively by the personal interference of Stalin. The Armenian side tried to finalize the exercise of the principle for the right of Nagorno-Karabakh people to self-determination compliant to the international practice; and serious legitimate grounds were established for the unconditional and unrestricted application of the latter. First of all, the legitimacy of the process served as a ground which from the very first moment had run in a lawful way and was conditioned by the fact that as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as due to the Azerbaijani Socialist Republic collapse, there were established two subjects/parties equal in rights, the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. Thus, the restoration of hegemony of Azerbaijan towards Nagorno-Karabakh assumed no more and no less than the restoration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with its Stalin era heritage. The Armenian side had been proving till the present day that negotiates waiving war as a means for resolution of disputes whereas Azerbaijan, on the contrary, is on the one hand within negotiation process and on the other hand is preparing to enter into war and does not conceal the fact in its all announcements. It is even clearly prescribed by the military doctrine that Azerbaijan also as a means for Nagorno- Karabakh conflict resolution can see war and non-use of force. Moreover, Azerbaijan in its propaganda and international instances strives to acquit its disposition and get the support of the international society regarding this matter. Consequently, when it is pronounced in the international instances that maintaining «status quo» is as unacceptable as prevention of war; we indirectly encourage the militant statements of Azerbaijan. Not maintaining status quo is acceptable but putting it at the same level is simply nonsense and is in no way understood in international legal practice. Of course, resolution is much better than maintaining status quo, though the change of status quo through war can in no way be justified and putting them at the same level is absolutely unacceptable, particularly if we do not say status quo, and say status antebellum. By this Azerbaijan understands the status prescribed by USSR constitution, whereas in the reality it was the status of Nagorno-Karabakh amended still during the existence of the USSR and due to that prior to preventing the war by Azerbaijan. Mr. Rustamyan called to examine the issue profoundly and precisely to avoid having various types of profiteering which directly distract the process resolution and become a serious obstacle to bring forward the negotiation process. Mrs. Larisa Alaverdyan dwelling upon the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution pointed out that no one has denied within the legitimate level that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh has been established in a lawful way compliant to the international law. Mrs Alaverdyan focused on human dimension. She mentioned that it is around 20 years that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh exists as a subject of international law though it is not recognized by the international society, where according to different estimates there live at least people. Mrs. Alaverdyan further mentioned that the EU commissioner Mrs. Ashton has several times come up with the statement on mass infringement of human rights being continued in Azerbaijan. The names of the people who are being openly persecuted due to political reasons are name by name mentioned in the documents of the European Union, as well as the entry of the EU representative was interdicted. Mrs. Alaverdyan further mentioned that Nagorno-Karabakh being unrecognized is building up its statehood based on all the norms of international law, has a PV\EN.doc 10 PE

11 government, and is recurrently conducting elections which should be worth envy not only for Azerbaijan but for Armenia as well. Mrs. Alaverdyan proposed to her colleagues to visit Nagorno-Karabakh, meet the people, see their everyday life, compare it with the lives of more than 1/3 of poor population of Azerbaijan, as well as compare the cultural values. With this respect the rapporteur called not to put the people and government managing their lives for around 20 years through their facings but to speak about propagation of democratic values. Then Mrs. Zohrabyan in addition to the speech of Mrs. Alaverdyan stressed that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh being an unrecognized state has unilaterally joined all the conventions of the Council of Europe and, if necessary, they can have the estimates of various international organizations on the elections ever conducted in Nagorno-Karabakh. Mrs. Naghdalyan stressed that the principle of territorial integrity is not primary in the UN Charter. Peace and human rights are deemed as primary and the notion of territorial integrity for the first time appears in the UN Charter in the items 2 and 4 and is considered as means to ensure peace and cooperation between states. This refers to the cooperation between the states and not to the rights of people and nations. If the decisions of Stalin regime are considered as basis for the principle of territorial integrity for the world, it is incomprehensible and we can consider it as application of double standards. Based on USSR and international law norms numerous nations have gained self-determination. How different is the right of self-determination of Azerbaijan, the one of Armenia, Georgia, Latvia or Lithuania from the right of selfdetermination of Nagorno-Karabakh? It is incomprehensible that the right of selfdetermination of all nations is determined by means of referendum except for the right of self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh people. Mrs. Naghdalyan further mentioned that it is unacceptable to speak about not using force in case when the principle for conflict resolution in a military way in the international policy is specified by the political doctrine of Azerbaijan. Moreover, Azerbaijan is terrorizing Armenia by the European oil money, as well as stating that its military budget is bigger than the budget of Armenia. Today, when the principle of not using force is seriously jeopardized, speaking about progress of negotiation process is secondary and in this respect we are accountable to our voters. Mr. Artak Zakaryan pointed out that in his opinion the European Parliament has no full overview on the conflict issue as if it is spoken about people living in direct threat and danger, then it is not fair to speak to these people through documents or propagate democracy. Focusing his contribution on the importance of the issue of conflict for the region, Mr. Zakaryan called his colleagues to be more cautious in the future considering the circumstance that the conflict can have serious consequences if the third parties treat it unfairly. He further mentioned that putting oil power in the window and replacing the energy resources by the security of people living in its home is not just. Speaking about Minsk Group format and importance of maintaining it, welcoming the support of other structures in this process, Mr. Zakaryan pointed out that it is necessary to clearly understand that when dealing with a very delicate issue any unbalanced step can turn the region into a disaster area. Mrs. Herczog pointed out that many EU countries had also lost territories and brought the example of Hungary. Hungarians lost 2/3 of their territories and more than PV\EN.doc 11 PE

12 1/3 of their population. If we speak about the right of self-determination, the European countries would have to be at war with each other. Many Hungarians lived in Ukraine or Serbia. However, the European Union could not apply international justice, this was not its role and Europe was a means for living together in peace where everyone should put aside the issues that led to war. That is, the European Union was a tool which prevented unresolved issues from leading to aggression. Mrs. Herczog noted the acceptance of the Minsk Group format for conflict resolution efforts, but asked how long time it would take to reach the resolution. The question was how the European Union and particularly the European Parliament could promote expeditious resolution of this issue. With the constant focus on the conflict, many important issues for Armenia were being forgotten, for example how to attract tourists to visit the country and experience its beauty and historical values. Mr. Kirilov noted that Armenia is not the only country which has a conflict problem. His country, Bulgaria had passed through 3 wars and lost over one million people. This was a great tragedy, but it belonged to the past. He further mentioned that the EP Delegation was the same for all the countries of the Southern Caucasus and that it discussed the conflict in most of its meetings. Mr. Kirilov suggested a joint meeting giving the Members the possibility to express their views and listen to each other. The conflict on the territories between France and Germany had also cost lives. Every effort should now be made to change the subject of discussions to integration, instead of war. Mr. Zakaryan said that European integration without problems was impossible. There were problems within Europe as well, for example the problem of Cyprus. With regard to the fact that also many European countries had lost territories, Mr. Zakaryan stressed that naturally it is a sorrowful issue, but such are the results of wars in comparison with Karabakh-Azerbaijani war which results and requirements are different. Armenia as well has lost many territories and most part of it is within the territory of today s Turkey. Mr. Zakaryan also addressed a question to the European colleagues, particularly what questions were raised during the meetings with Azerbaijan and in which of them the Azerbaijani side did not come to agreement. Also Mr. Cabrnoch pointed out that territorial integrity and self-determination issues and suffering from the results of wars existed also in many European countries, including Poland, Germany and Belarus. Mr. Cabrnoch noted that support for the Minsk group meant acceptance of the Madrid Principles, expressed in the statement at the l Aquila Summit on July10, 2009, related to: the return of the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh guaranteeing security and self-governance, a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh to be determined in the future by a legally-binding expression of will, the right of all internally-displaced persons and refugees to return, and international security guarantees, including a peacekeeping operation. Mrs. Zohrabyan announced that a group of deputies would leave to discuss the draft texts of a joint declaration and expressed the hope that consensus would be reached so that such a declaration could be adopted. Mr. Cabrnoch considered that respect for the Minsk Group process should mean abstention from discussing its details. He stressed that the European Parliament and other European structures had no mandate to search for a solution to the conflict. PV\EN.doc 12 PE

13 The choice was therefore whether to encourage the Minsk Group process or reject it. Mr. Cabrnoch then proposed to focus on the Eastern Partnership. Mr. Nahapetyan introduced the Eastern Partnership, pointing out that it had opened up new prospects for the relations of the European Union and Eastern partners. Wide-scale reforms in various field of economy, efficient management, democracy, human rights, rule of law and social life commenced in Armenia due to the support of the European partners. This envisaged significant enhancement of political participation level, wide-scale involvement in the economy of the European Union, facilitation of the regime of visas, improvement of energy security, as well as financial support. The EU offered to its eastern partners a more intensive support regarding the issue of the implementation of reforms as well as a new format in relations which assumed involvement of partners in the resolution of common issues. Mr. Nahapetyan mentioned that all the initiatives of the Eastern Partnership were concrete directions of cooperation. Armenia was making significant efforts in the direction of implementation of the Eastern Partnership initiative which would grant the possibility to considerably activate the joint work in the field of fortifying the legal norms compliant to the European standards and economic reforms of the democratic structures. Multilateral cooperation with the European Union could be an extremely efficient means for the regional stability, thus contributing to the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Mr. Nahapetyan stressed the importance of the establishment of the Euronest PA as a parliamentary cooperation constituent of the Eastern Partnership. The objective of Euronest was incentivizing the field of democracy, rule of law, fundamental human rights, economy, sustainable development and good governance within the scope of the European Neighbourhood Policy, as well as speed up the process of economic integration supporting partner states in political and social-economic reforms. Focusing on the cultural reforms implemented in Armenia within ENP frames, Mr. Nahapetyan pointed out that a regional movie school had been established where acting lessons were conducted by world famous cinematographers from Turkey, Iran, Georgia and Russia. Preliminary works had been implemented for restoration of cultural values, in the direction of establishment of a regional school. The legal environment had been regulated and expanded with the EU member states. Armenia had actively participated in the international activities implemented within the framework of the European Union. Mr. Nahapetyan further mentioned that for the sake of implementation of the system of biometric passports and identification cards in Armenia, the realization of the project was planned to be commenced by the first quarter of Having the objective to incentivize fortification of democratic structures, efficient fight against corruption a number of legislative reforms has been executed, mostly in the fight against trafficking and legalization of the funds gained by illegal means. With a view of reducing corruption risks, as well as ensuring transparency in the sphere of justice, the Ministry of Justice had introduced an on-line system of services. In the list of activities of Armenia-EU cooperation programme concrete steps related to the Ministry of Defense had been implemented, namely a bill of disciplinary code of laws had been developed by the Ministry of Defense and presented to the National Assembly compliant to which the duties, rights, statutory relations and appellation forms were most clarified. A public council under the Minister of Defense PV\EN.doc 13 PE

14 works to protect the rights of the military staff, as well as to ensure supervision over transparency in the field of defense. The strategy of public awareness of the Minister of Defense, as well as the draft law on making amendments and addenda in the law on alternative military service had been modified. With respect to the armed conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh contact line, the Armenian side expressed its unconditional consent to the withdrawal of snipers from frontlines, as well as the undertakings directed at intensification of the monitoring on maintaining ceasefire regime by the international structures to which the Azerbaijani side constantly opposes. Mr Nahapetyan assured that the main objective of the EU-Armenia Eastern partnership, that is the creation of the necessary conditions for speeding up the processes of political unification and further economic involvement between the EU and concerned partner countries, was a realistic and possible issue under the conditions of political will, application of obstinate and constituent efforts of the Eastern Partnership countries. Mrs. Zohrabyan briefly commented on Armenia-Turkey relations, stressing that Armenia undertaking the process of switching relations between with Turkey onto a normal track was guided by one formula, not to be guided by the slogan of enduring enemy and not to have the only closed border with Europe. Although the process was open to the public and it was clear to everyone that the process was impeded exclusively by Turkey which had brought forward preconditions and the latter were recorded by the European Union. Today, the political authority of Turkey was not ready to establish relations with its neighbours without any preconditions inherent to a 21-century country. Mrs Zohrabyan pointed out that in this case the statements should be addressed to Turkey which claiming for EU membership was guided by Ottoman Turkey tools. Point 9 of the Agenda At the end of the meeting a dialogue with the representatives of civil society was held - Mr Vache Kalashyan, Head of the Union of Civil Servants, President of Coordination Council of the Armenian National Platform Mr Kalashyan stressed the fact that the Armenian national platform was established in July 2010 upon the initiative of the delegation that returned from a conference held in Brussels. The speaker noted that no procedure regarding national platforms was yet adopted by the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum and considered that in this situation, any interference by the Forum's Steering Committee in the issue of establishing national platforms constituted a gross violation of the principles of self-organization and sovereignty. He stressed that the creation of the platforms should lead to improvement of the processes in the EU's six partner countries. The national platform of Armenia had founded working groups on human rights, energy security and ecology, localization of economic standards and international relations. A memorandum had been signed with the Armenian delegation of Euronest. With regard to the regional issues, Mr. Kalashyan mentioned that some provisions were recommended in the reports published by the European structures which should lead to new dividing lines in the region. He raised the question on the fact that general security and defense police forces should be created which would be PV\EN.doc 14 PE

15 located in the conflict area. According to Mr Kalashyan, peace is not established compulsorily, coercion of peace by force contradicts peace logic. Dwelling upon the issue of human rights protection, Mr. Kalashyan stressed that while the international society was conducting diplomatic negotiations on regulating Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, elementary rights related to mobility, health care, education etc of the people inhabiting the conflict area were being infringed. He also stresses that in the fourth group of the national platform of Armenia, a national diplomatic sub-group had been established within the frameworks of which they should be able to make closer the civil cooperation and rapprochement of the sides under conflict. Summing up, Mr. Kalashyan invited Mr. Kirilov to visit Nagorno-Karabakh to see how Nagorno- Karabakh society lives and what kind of problems it had. - Mr Harutyun Azgaldyan, President of the Youth Parliament Mr. Azgaldyan briefly introduced the youth parliament and presented a number of suggestions. Mr. Azgaldyan mentioned that stressing the importance of possibility for mobility of young people and considering that Armenian young people were deemed to be part of the European family, he recommended reducing or fully removing the rates of the visas for the students for entering the European Union area. Turning to the issue of recognition of state and private higher educational institutions diplomas of the representatives within the area of the European Union, Mr. Azgaldyan recognised that this was a complicated issue as it was related to ensuring quality. This problem could, however, be overcome through joint work. There was also a need to look at the number of places provided for Armenia in educational programmes. Mr Azgalcyan requested support from Members of the EP Delegation for the establishment of relations between the Armenian Youth Parliament and the EU's Youth Parliament. It would be very efficient if we were once present at the annual conference, which will grant with the possibility to come up with concrete recommendations. Mr. Azgaldyan said that also in Georgia, a Youth Parliament had been founded and that it would participate in the forthcoming plenary session of Youth Parliament of Armenia. All the proposals just made would later be provided in written form, Mr Azgalcyan told. Mrs. Teresa Riera Madurell thanked the previous speakers. She had found it very interesting to listen to young people and welcomed the establishment of the Youth Parliament. Mrs. Madurell asked which the main problems of the youth in Armenia were and what support for free and fair conduct of the upcoming elections was being planned. - Mr. Narek Vanesyan, head of Prosperous Armenia Faction of the Youth Parliament, as well as head of Human Rights Defence and Public issues Standing Committee Mr Narek Vanesyan anticipated the support of the European Union delegates for the establishment of cooperation between the deputies of parliamentary groups and the Youth Parliament of Armenia. He pointed out that they were ready to support the establishment of Youth Parliaments in the countries under conflict. Though they made PV\EN.doc 15 PE