He said 18 of them are former servicemen of the 366th regiment; eight are employees of the interior bodies of Khankendi and Askeran whilst five are other officials and also eight civilians.

The military prosecutor said all these individuals are charged under Article 103 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan for their part in the genocide. The charges are: Article 107 of the Criminal Code (war crimes and crimes against peace and humanity and deportation), Article. 113 (torture), Article 115.4, (violation of the laws and principles of warfare) and p.116.0.17 (violation of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts) of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan.

At present, about 3000 people have been questioned for the period of the Khojaly genocide as part of a criminal case. There are around 2000 acknowledged as being victims of which more than 800 have undergone specialist treatment.

The amount of material damage caused by the occupation of Khojaly to the state and citizens of Azerbaijan has already been defined. It amounts to 140 million manat ($170 million), Mr Veliyev said.

There is an on-going collection of evidence on those accused of committing genocide. Mr Veliyev also noted that the decision was made to prosecute 287 individuals accused of criminal offenses in the occupied Azerbaijani territories.

An indictment has been made against 239 people. Some 39 of them are accused of crimes in Khojaly, six in Garadagly, 18 in Baganis-Ayrim, six in Mesheli and 47 in Kyargidzhahan,. At least 35 are cited for violence, three on terrorism and 85 for other crimes. A decision against 48 individuals was made relating to banditry, illegal possession of weapons and other crimes.

The military prosecutor said the Khojaly genocide is on a par with the well-known events in Khatyn, Lidice, My Lai and Srebrenica.

The Armenian military forces committed genocide in Khojaly on Feb. 26, 1992. Some 613 people were killed, including 63 children, 106 women and 70 old men. A total of 1000 civilians were disabled during the genocide. Eight families were annihilated, 130 children lost one parent, and 25 lost both. Additionally, 1275 innocent residents were taken hostage, while the fate of 150 remains unknown.

How the Azerbaijani membership to the UN Security Council may help (if may) the Karabakh settlement?

This can be a two edged sword. On the one hand you may be able to influence opinion to put pressure on a resolution, but only if you go about it in the right way. The world is full of similar conflicts and every country thinks its own conflict the most important and wants to bring it to the top of the agenda. If Azerbaijan tries to rush or push its case on the Council it will only alienate potential friends and allies, more importantly it might even make enemies. Remember, states don’t have friends they have interests, Azerbiajan has to think in terms of what will make major states see it as in their interest to support Azerbaijan.

Here the key thing is not to appear solely concerned with one topic only, i.e Nagorno-Karabakh, but to appear reasonable, level headed and someone who can make a real contribution all round in a very sensible and useful manner. Look at ways to help resolve other conflicts and so establish your credibility as reasonable and useful. This ups your credibility, makes friends and influences people over the longer term – and any resolution will be long term. It would be a mistake to openly use your position on the Councl to pursue your own dispute over N-K.

There is an opinion that possible military invasion to Iran may cause a new war in its neighborhood – between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Karabakh. How real is it?

How much does Azerbaijan want  war? That is part of the answer to your question. The other part is who you think will invade Iran. The US has learnt not to invade anyone new for the time being. Air strikes are a different thing and the US may be prepared to let Israel bomb Iran. Is Armenia ready for another war? OR are you thinking that Azerbaijan will invade Iran?

By the way, how real to you is a war against Iran and what do you think about consequences of it for a whole region?

Any war would have major reprecussions throughout the entire region, not least for Hezbollah/Syria and Israel. Again, I am assuming you are thinking of the US or US led NATO war with Iran, which I don’t think is realistic. Maybe lots of actions, air strikes etc, but no actual invasion. Nor do I think Iran wants to initiate a war, since they do not have the military capability to confront modern weapons and technology, although they may be very provocative at a sub-war level. Israeli airstrikes are a real prospect.

What can you say about Armenian-Turkish rapprochement while Armenian Diaspora don’t decline of “Armenian genocide” company all over the world?

The rapprochement is part of real politic – states have interests not friends. It is convenient to both for geo-strategic purposes, since Armenia is relatively isolated in the region and Turkey is looking for new friends as she edges away from the EU and Israel. At state level they can forget about an inconvenience like the genocide 100 years ago. For those not living in the reality of Armeina’s current position in the Caucuses it is possible to ignore political realities and remain on the moral/emotional high ground, although many have also moved on.

May decision of the French Senate on criminalization of “Armenian genocide” denial harm relations between Turkey and France, including within NATO?

The French have always tried to play their own game, pour la gloire de France. Don’t take too much notice of it. Currently France has little strategic interest in the Caucuses so it can afford to be moralistic, the rest of NATO can’t. Nor does France have great historic ties to Turkey. So far no one else has backed France so just it let it slowly be forgotten.

“The resolution calls on the international community to compel the Armenian side to the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on the immediate liberation of all occupied territories. And last but not least, the resolution calls for bringing to justice all those responsible for Khojaly genocide” Shikarov told Trend on Monday.

Senate of Pakistan February 1 event recognized in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly genocide.

The Pakistani Senate has recognized events in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly in 1992 as genocide on February 1.

The resolution states that the Senate condemns the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenians and the genocide committed by Armenian armed forces in Khojaly in February 1992. It confirms Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and recognizes it within internationally recognized borders.

Shikarov said leaders of the pro-government and opposition parties, as well as chairmen of committees of the Senate were actively involved in a meeting chaired by the Deputy Chairman of the Senate (Senate of Pakistan has only one deputy). This document was adopted unanimously by all participants in the session.

Shikarov noted that parliamentary traditions of Pakistan do not encourage consideration of issues concerning the other countries, but if this happens, the lawmakers are limited to a statement. “In our case, a resolution was adopted, which is the highest-level document, adopted by the Senate,” Shikarov said.

Shikarov noted that a session of the Parliament in such a busy time for them – on the eve of the election – indicate the special respect of the Pakistani people to Azerbaijani one.

“As the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Salim Seyfulla Khan said adopted document should serve as a model for other countries” Shikarov said.

“Pakistan fully supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the official Islamabad has not yet been recognized Armenia as a state with regard to the occupation of Azerbaijani lands” Shikarov said.

Shikarov noted that the Pakistani people are well informed about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Khojaly genocide. Regular seminars and conferences on the subject organized by the Embassy in higher educational institutions, articles in leading publications, television programs keep this issue at the center of attention of the public of Pakistan, Shikarov said.

Armenian armed forces with the help of the 366th motor-rifling regiment occupied Azerbaijan’s Khojaly city and committed genocide, killing hundreds of innocent people because of their ethnic background on February 26, 1992. As a result, 613 people were savagely killed, 487 were injured, and 1,275 people were taken into hostage. The fates of many of them are still unknown. After the 366th motor-rifling regiment’s withdrawal from Khankendi, a major part of the military equipment owned by this military unit was transferred to the Armenian separatists.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988 when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. – are currently holding the peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions.

The position paper entitled “20 years of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh: a new impulse for a peaceful conflict resolution” reads:

“In 1992, following repeated ethnically motivated outbreaks of violence between Armenians and Azeris, the conflict over NK lead to massive refugee flows and caused ten thousands of deaths among Armenian and Azerbaijani troops. In 1993, the Armenian forces managed to take up the Western corridor between Armenia and NK. The Azerbaijani territories East and South of the former autonomous territory of NK also came under Armenian control.

Approximately 25 000 people died in this war and about 1 million where ousted out of their homes and had to flee. Following the war over NK, Armenian forces not only occupy NK itself (approx. 5% of Azerbaijani territory) but also the 7 surrounding Azerbaijani territories. The UN Security Council has condemned the military occupation of parts of the Azerbaijani national territory in 1993. Today approx. 20% of the Azerbaijani territory is under Armenian control.

The international community sees NK as an integral part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this context, it is Germany’s as well as the EU’s position to support a permanent and peaceful resolution of the conflict. Neither Germany nor the EU has recognized the 2010 parliamentary elections in NK.

Already since the conflict erupted in 1992, the OSCE-Minsk Group is in charge of finding a peaceful resolution to this frozen conflict. Despite 20 years of mediation attempts, the efforts to overcome the status quo have remained unfruitful. Armed incidents at the ceasefire line (established in 1994) regularly cause the dead of innocent people. Not later than in October 2011, 2 Azerbaijani soldiers were killed close-by the ceasefire line during an exchange of fire. Early in March 2011, Armenian snipers killed a 9-year old Azerbaijani child shooting directly at him through the ceasefire line. During an incident in June 2010, 4 Armenian soldiers and 1 Azerbaijani soldier were killed.

Such incidents, along with the occupation of NK, are in breach with international law commitments. According to the Art. 2 §3 and 4 of the UN Charta, all the members are obliged to settle their international conflicts through peaceful means so as to not endanger world peace, international security and justice. All UN member states have to refrain from violating the territorial integrity or the political independence of another country. They also have to refrain from using any kind threats or violence in breach with the goals of the UN.

By now, the conflict is so serious that the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs advises against any travel to NK. The German Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot give consular help or support to travellers going to NK.

An arms race is at work in the entire region. Military expenses in Armenia and Azerbaijan have constantly increased in the past years. In Azerbaijan, the defence expenditures make up for about 20% of the entire state budget. In August 2010, Armenia signed an agreement with Russia for an increased military cooperation. Russia runs several military bases in Armenia.

The region plays a growing role for European energy supply. One of the explicit key objectives of the EU’s energy policy is to diversify and secure gas imports to the EU in the long run through agreements with Azerbaijan.

The 20th anniversary of the conflict gives the opportunity to rethink the conflict resolution process as it has been carried out until now and give it a new impetus. A peaceful resolution and the normalisation of relations would have direct positive impact on economic and societal developments in the region. The members of the working group on foreign policy of the CDU/CSU-Fraktion hence prompt the federal government to:

1. dedicate an increased attention to the conflict over NK, jointly with our friends in the OSCE, NATO and the UN. At all discussions and bilateral meetings between the parties at conflict, the following has to be underlined: need for political compromise, need for a peaceful settlement, need for security guarantees for the populations living at the ceasefire line and need for the restoration of mutual trust;
2. request a stronger role for the EU in the conflict resolution process and work towards the replacement of France in the MG by the EU and also provide the EU special representative for the SC with a clear mediation mandate among the parties at conflict;
3. in the framework of the EaP, everything has to be done to allow political and economic rapprochement between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the regional conflict resolution has to be considered as a keystone of the EaP;
4. motivate our partner Russia, key country in the resolution of the NK conflict, to engage in a more constructive role so as to overcome the status quo, stop the arms race and aim for a permanent resolution of the conflict;
5. similar to the “Meseberg-Memorandum” with regards to the conflict over Transdniestria, the immediate deepening of EU-Russia security policy dialogue has to be put forward;
6. motivate the EU-candidate Turkey to normalize its relations with Armenia as this would allow Russian troop to withdraw from Armenia (e.g. the Russian troops securing the boarder with Turkey) and hence centrally contribute to the decrease of the arms race in the South Caucasus in the middle run.
7. support Turkey to play a more constructive role in the conflict resolution and do justice to its responsibility in the region”, APA reports.

The statement came from chief of the Milli Majlis committee for international relations and interparliamentary ties, head of the Azerbaijani delegation in PACE Samad Seyidov.

“Throughout its activity, this structure has failed to find the way to solve the conflict. There is an impression that the OSCE Minsk Group is created to continue the conflict rather than to solve it. Certainly, we are not against this format, but things must be called by their names”, Seyidov said.

Noting that OSCE Minsk Group is co-chaired by such leading states as the United States, Russia and France, Seyidov voiced bewilderment that this conflict remains unsettled: “If any organization is unable to fulfill its mission, it means that it is necessary to discuss its further activity”.

He also reminded that Azerbaijan is doing everything possible to discuss this problem within the Council of Europe, but Armenian side avoids these discussions all the time.

Azerbaijani news agency APA said that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are all in negotiations with Russia on buying the missile complex, codenamed SA-22 Greyhound by NATO.

Russia’s arms exporter Rosoboronexport has received orders for the Pantsir-S1 from Algeria and Morocco and has already sold the missile complex to Syria, Iran, the UAE and Oman.

The Pantsir-S1 is designed to provide short-range air defence with a target range of 20 kilometres. It can be mounted on a tracked or wheeled vehicle or be stationary.

The Pantsir-S1 replaces the Tunguska complex in the Russian army.

Last year Azerbaijan took delivery of two S-300 air-defence missile systems from Russia, worth $300 million.

Mr Bakhshaliyeva said the parliaments of member states are urged to recognise the massacre of civilians committed by the Armenian armed forces against the population of the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly as genocide in the outcome document of the PA OIP and demand to bring to justice the individuals who committed such a heinous crime.

Presentation of the draft resolution on the Khojaly genocide by PA OIP is the important question, Parliamentary chairman Ogtay Asadov said. The adoption of such resolutions by international organisations is very important, he added.

The genocide was carried out by Armenian military forces in Khojaly on Feb. 26, 1992. More than 600 people were killed, including 63 children, 106 women and 70 elderly men. A total of 1000 civilians were disabled during the genocide. Eight families were annihilated, 130 children lost one parent, and 25 lost both. Additionally, 1275 civilians were taken hostage, while the fate of a further 150 remains unknown.

MPs then continued to work on the agenda. It includes the following issues: appointment of members of the Central Bank, annual report of the body implementing administrative control over the municipalities, the bill to amend the list of municipalities of the Azerbaijan Republic, a supplement to the law On territories and land plots municipalities, changes to the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code bill (second reading) and on the rights and freedoms of those held in detention.

At the recent Karabakh summit in Sochi, the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia noted the importance of establishing contacts between representatives of civil society in the two countries and asked the Russian president to assist in this process. What can Russia do to help?

I think this humanitarian activity will continue with the support of funds from Western states even without Russian mediation. The Russian role in this issue has been minimal. Any conference, meeting or other event held in Russia has always been political rather than humanitarian.

I do not think that Russia can achieve great success on this. Russia has been trying itself to get involved in this process but unsuccessfully, since this niche is already occupied by European countries. Since 2009 the European Union has been working on a big regional project, European policy on Nagorno-Karabakh. This project is intended for four years and I think Russia has no chance to compete with this.

Russia simply has the capacity to influence the conflict parties to ensure that mutual visits are made directly via the front line. Russia can achieve this. The people now governing Nagorno-Karabakh are under the direct influence of Russia which we felt during the mission organized to the conflict area by the ambassadors of Azerbaijan and Armenia to Moscow two years ago. It was evident that Russia can ensure joint passage via the front line within a short period of time.

That is, Russia has certain capacities but no chance to compete with the EU in a humanitarian peacekeeping mission. For example, I and my colleagues taking part in this process do not believe in Russia’s sincerity. For example, if I am invited tomorrow to join an action in Moscow, I am unlikely to do so since I do not trust Russia. I shall think this is all a sham.

The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia themselves asked the Russian president about mediation. That is, Serzh Sargsyan also asked for his help, although he is reported to have frustrated a planned meeting of representatives of both communities of Nagorno-Karabakh in November. What could have caused this change of heart in Yerevan?

Neither Armenia nor Nagorno-Karabakh agree with the meetings in the communities format. They are very much against any such initiatives. On the other hand, if these meetings are presented as meetings of the current residents of Karabakh with those forced to flee, the Armenians can also be persuaded. But when the meetings are said to be at the level of communities, they avoid them, as Yerevan does not consider contacts between Karabakh Armenians and Azerbaijanis to be significant.

This is because Armenia wants to rid itself of responsibility in future, it wants to demonstrate to Europe that it has allegedly no capacity to influence Nagorno-Karabakh and all issues related to resolution of the conflict should be settled through Karabakh. It is also difficult for Azerbaijan to do this and to stand aside. We consider the current residents of Nagorno-Karabakh to be de jure our citizens, so we cannot avoid contact with them, and the Azerbaijani authorities cannot accept this provocation. I think we were in too much of hurry when we described the format as that of the two communities of Nagorno- Karabakh; it would be better to describe this as the format of representatives of civil society.

What do you, as a direct participant in such contacts, think about the future of these meetings? What format should they take in order to assist a political settlement of the conflict?

First of all, we should dispel the myths between Azerbaijanis and Armenians. Our communities still live with these myths and we must change this. Azerbaijan and Armenia have rich experience of co-existence and even kinship. We have lost this and today there is no chance to show this for real and this positive practice is already being forgotten. The younger generation  needs to be made aware of this positive experience so that they understand that it is possible.

There is a need to settle humanitarian problems in order to increase mutual trust between Azerbaijan and Armenia. For example, there is the problem of refugees and hostages, the problem of the normal return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes; there is the problem of information warfare, which is accompanied by mutual accusations and insults; abuse and insulting language should be excluded from information resources and society as a whole. It should all be avoided so that when we sit at a table tomorrow, we can discuss the issue of the return of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent regions and the status of this region, instead of solving insignificant problems. Unless we resolve the smaller issues, we will focus only on them during the meetings and won’t be able to talk about the return of the occupied lands.

In this sense, I consider the recent statements of the presidents important. The presidents have already entered the phase we have been talking about for years. We have long been insisting on resolution of the smaller issues in order to allow the bigger ones to be tackled. If we cannot settle them, but manage to create trust between the peoples, it will still be difficult to make the people accept an agreement signed by the heads of state somewhere abroad.

The statement came from Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Spokesman Elman Abdullayev while commenting on the interview of the Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian to Armenian media, in which he stated that the Azerbaijani side forms provocative atmosphere which hampers the settlement of the conflict.

“Attempting once again to delude the Armenian and international community, Nalbandian is trying to look constructive.

The Armenian leadership does nothing but slows down the negotiation process and tries for this purpose a variety of options and measures for the preservation and fixation of the status quo, not to mention the confidence-building measures. Speaking about the atmosphere of mutual trust, the Armenian government is doing everything to prevent the meeting and communication of the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan.

The one who talks about confidence-building measures is the representative of the country armed forces of which continue to occupy the Azerbaijani lands, driving away all the indigenous people and subjecting it to ethnic cleansing,” the spokesman said.

A number of European NGOs created conditions for the conduction of the inter-community meetings, to which Armenian representatives, unfortunately, didn’t come and it’s not difficult to guess that it didn’t happen because of the impediment of Yerevan, Abdullayev noted.

Differently from Azerbaijan, Armenia never showed constructiveness and pragmatic approach to the settlement of the conflict, according to the ministry official.

On the contrary, all its efforts were directed to rebuff the settlement of the problem, the spokesman underlined.

‘What ‘the wise leadership’ of Armenia does with its country is obvious and it doesn’t care about its own country’s future at all.

It’s interesting that did Nalbandian mean that Armenian snipers killed Azerbaijani children while talking about incidents and provocations in the frontline?

Azerbaijan was always a multinational country – in the Soviet times and now, and we are proud of it. Our contribution to the intercultural and interreligious dialogue in the international scale is quite big.

Unfortunately, Armenia does quite the opposite, disrespecting any cultural and religious values and destroying all cultural and historical monuments of the indigenous Azerbaijani population in the occupied lands. As before, we doubt the sincerity of the Armenian leadership,’ Abdullayev said.

“The essence and architecture of the settlement process are clear. The first requirement to make progress in the settlement process is to withdraw the Armenian forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories as required by the international community,” the spokesman noted.

The participants in the Sochi meetings on Karabakh say that they have “made progress in reaching agreement” on the principles for resolving the conflict. Do you think this is really so, or are the sides simply using a diplomatic ploy to justify another failure?

This process can be regarded as a fresh start. Yes, on the one hand this meeting is the 10th in this format, i.e. with the mediation of the Russian president. After the collapse of all the positive hopes for a breakthrough at the meeting in Kazan, we can assume that the process has begun anew. And in this case, any breakthrough, amy agreements and even the meeting itself can be regarded as a positive fact.

Overall, it wasn’t worth expecting any breakthrough from the Sochi meeting. Don’t forget that nine similar meetings had been held before this meeting, which didn’t make progress either. So, I assess the situation as a continuing and steadfast process within which the presidents will probably continue to meet even after the election of Vladimir Putin as president of Russia (I think this outcome of the Russian presidential elections is no secret) and the process will continue to exist in this format.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov told journalists after the Sochi meeting that the participants in the negotiations had recognized the need to pull back from extreme positions. Don’t you think this is remarkable?

Azerbaijan in all cases is ready for compromise. What is our extreme position? It’s the position that Azerbaijan will restore its territorial integrity anyway. But we still believe that we can offer the highest status of autonomy to the Armenians and Azerbaijanis of Nagorno-Karabakh i.e. our citizens. In other words, we ensure the right to self-determination of the Karabakh Armenians in Azerbaijan. And this is a very serious compromise.

But the Armenians state that there is no compromise here, since they lived in a Karabakh autonomy in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO).

Even if it was so, the Karabakh Armenians think that in the NKAO they didn’t have the rights that they expected. Today Azerbaijan is an independent country and the situation is quite different. And we can talk about the guarantee of these rights but not status. And what Armenia’s compromise can be isn’t clear at all, since they don’t wish to back off from the idea of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh outside Azerbaijan.

Does this mean that independent Azerbaijan can give the Karabakh Armenians more than Soviet Azerbaijan could? 

Exactly. Today Azerbaijan is economically more progressive than it was during the Soviet period. We can also discuss what Soviet Azerbaijan didn’t give to Nagorno-Karabakh, considering that, at that time, economic development was higher in Nagorno-Karabakh than in Azerbaijan.

Even assuming that there was discrimination against Nagorno-Karabakh as the Armenians claim, then I don’t understand what the Armenians will get if Nagorno-Karabakh gains independence or joins Armenia. In this case, they will certainly not get the level of human rights and economic opportunities that Azerbaijan can offer. This is because Azerbaijan will strongly oppose any development – political, economic, social and any other – of either side.

Coming back to the issue of the extremist Armenian position, what concessions may come from Armenia?

On this, the Armenians always mention the possibility of withdrawal from the occupied regions around Karabakh. This is a compromise according to them. They express willingness to give back these regions that they call “the security zone” and, in return, they want the removal of economic sanctions against Armenia and the opening of the corridor between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as Turkey. For now, Armenians see this as a compromise.

On the other hand, today’s reality is that it isn’t worth expecting more than that from the Armenian establishment, because the current leadership of Armenia came to power under the motto “For the independence of Karabakh”. If this motto changes today, these people will probably not be able to remain in power. Besides, we shouldn’t forget that Armenia is an outpost of Russia and it is Russia that determines the country’s  behaviour in the region and not Yerevan, as the country’s interests require. And what are the national interests of Armenia?

They are improving relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan in order to survive. In the modern world, a full state is an economically developed country which cooperates with its neighbours to the maximum. And a country which doesn’t have an outlet to the sea, doesn’t have resources – how can it survive a situation where it has hostile relations with two neighbours, the third neighbour is under international sanctions and the fourth neighbour (Georgia) has limited access to the world (Russia), since Georgia has very complicated relations with Russia and Tbilisi views Armenia as a continuation of Russia because the Armenian economy is totally dependent on Russian capital.