The Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia has appealed to the Turkish Constitutional Court to regain the right to ownership of the land parcel located in the Kozan province of Adana and where the ruins of the St. Sofia Monastery and another church are located. In relation to this, lawyer Cem Sofuoglu said the following: “If this trial proceeds in our favor, it will become a precedent for the return of the rights to ownership of other churches and monasteries.”

Several commemorative ceremonies, as well as conferences and public events were held on the occasion of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, but lawyers and political figures would take the real step. Both sides discussed certain points, but they didn’t set aside the genocide as an item on the agenda, except for April 24^th. The draft laws on recognition or denial of genocide weren’t introduced in agendas or covered by the media in the international arena very much. It was only the Parliament of Belgium that introduced the law on Armenian Genocide recognition in its agenda on 23-24 June, accepting as a basis the decision that the EU took on June 15.

Amid all this, another issue that deserves to be observed is the issue of the lawyers who are making more efforts for reparations than acknowledgement of the genocide. Apparently, since the signing of the Second Lausanne between Turkey and the US, Turkey is continuing discussions on who will make reparations for the Armenians and to what extent, meaning the main reason for Turkey’s lack of acknowledgement of the genocide is reparations and the lands that it might lose.

That’s why Turkey is trying to get the votes from nationalist citizens through statements such as “land claims” and “claim for reparations”.

To prepare documents that will have an influence, this year, Armenians established two committees that organized meetings in Europe and the US in an attempt to find the paths that would help them speak out about the Armenian Cause. In 2014, the committees released their initial report in which they stated the steps that needed to be taken on the occasion of the centennial.

After the release of these reports, one of the three large Armenian patriarchates in the world, that is, the Catholicosate of Cilicia took action and appealed to the Turkish Constitutional Court for the Catholicosate of Sis, which existed in Kozan for more than 600 years, but ceased to exist as a Catholicosate after 1915. In the first week of June, Catholicos Aram I announced in Paris that “this trial is not a trial to regain a handful of soil” and emphasized the religious, national and political significance and symbol of the Catholicosate of Cilicia. His Holiness Aram I informed that this trial is the first step in the process of regaining rights. “Experts examined all the strategies when we were submitting our appeal. We hope the trial gains momentum and opens new horizons.”

Cem Sofuoglu, author of these words and the lawyer of His Holiness Aram I following the case submitted to the Constitutional Court, answered our questions regarding denial of genocide and reparations.

Who is Cem Murad Sofuoglu?

Cem Murad Sofuoglu was born in 1957. After graduating from the French St. Joseph All-Boys School, he got accepted to the Faculty of Law of the University of Istanbul. He has been an independent lawyer for the past 31 years. Currently, he is the chairman of the Istanbul Bureau of the EU Legal Committee. Sofuoglu also gives lectures on human rights, humanitarian law and democracy to students pursuing their studies through the Erasmus Program in the Faculty of Law of the University of Okan. He has written many articles and has done several translations in the fields of law, history and literature.

-Turkey recently learned about you through the trial of the Armenian Patriarchate of Cilicia to regain the Catholicosate of Sis from Turkey. What is the essence of this trial? What are the demands of the Catholicosate of Cilicia?

-The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia wants to regain its right to ownership of the land parcel located in the Kozan province of Adana, which was the religious center and holy place for the Catholicosate between 1293 and 1915 and where the St. Sofia Monastery and the ruins of another church are located. That’s the essence of our trial in the Constitutional Court. No matter how much the Catholicosate demands 100 million Turkish liras compensation along with the return of the right to ownership during the trial, this is merely a legal imposition that was an obligation just to complete the form for an appeal to the Constitutional Court. We have never demanded reparation. Our major goal is to have the right to ownership returned.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT HAS DEMANDED AUTHORIZATION

-Are these demands legitimate? If the court rules in your favor, what will happen next? Which stage is the preparation of the documentation in?

-The institution or person, who doesn’t live in Turkey, can file a claim to a Turkish court. The peculiarity of this trial is that the Catholicosate, which wants to regain the right to ownership, has been the one in charge of everything here for more than 600 years. There are many facts. The most important argument is the church that remains standing in Kozan.

If we win, this trial will become a precedent for the return of the right to ownership of other churches and monasteries.

Recently, the Constitutional Court demanded that we submit the authorization of the Catholicosate.

-We asked various international lawyers for their opinion on the definition and denial of genocide. What do you think about the laws considering “denial of genocide” a crime?

-We obviously can’t defend the crime against humanity, that is, genocide, but certain countries are liberal in regard to this. For instance, you can deny the Jewish Holocaust in the US and England. Denial of genocide isn’t a crime in these countries. Denial of genocide is considered a crime in countries that participated in the genocide, whose hands aren’t clean and countries on which genocides have had a huge impact, for example, Germany, Australia and France. Calling attention to the anti-Semitism in our country, I claim that denial of genocide should be a crime.

-Do you think denying genocide is a right, or violation of a right? How should denial be punished?

-I accept the fact that the deportation of the Armenians was genocide. I know that Rafael Lemkin, who coined the term ��?genocide’, referred to the Armenian Genocide when drafting the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and that he drafted the Convention and coined the term by accepting the case as a basis. He also thought this was genocide. This case is different from the Jewish genocide in that it took place 30 years before the Holocaust, and no international court had taken a decision on that like the Court of Nuremburg. The basis of denial of the Armenian Genocide is more political than legal with the legal argument that I tried to present.

THERE IS A CHARGE FOR HATRED, BUT THERE IS NO INSTIGATED CASE

-Can denial be punished in a country like Turkey which has turned genocide into a state policy? According to national legislation, can denial of genocide be considered a crime “that humiliates any nation” in Turkey?

-The current criminal code includes the crime of instilling hatred, but there is no instigated case, even though high-ranking Turkish political figures commit this crime. As a lawyer, I criticize this and say it’s a shame. I hope prosecutors and political figure will be more careful in relation to this issue.

Radikal.com.tr

Translated from Turkish to Armenian by Anahit Kartashyan

akunq.net