Council of Europe Has to Respect Its Own Standards

***

- Samad Bey, what prompted you to put forward a proposal to exclude Azerbaijan from the Council of Europe?

- Why should Azerbaijan be excluded from the Council of Europe? Well, in my opinion, the main problem is not the corruption of the CoE, but in its nature and ideology. The nature and ideology of the Council of Europe do not allow removing the real problems that our country faces. I want to bring to your attention the main arguments that led me to adhere to this position.

First, it is connected with the very essence of the CoE. By its nature, the CoE is a reform platform, and its task is to function as a single mechanism for reform. From this point of view, the Council of Europe benefits only if the political subjects of the Council of Europe conscientiously (bona fide) agree with the reform mission and fully comply with this framework. Unlike European countries, Azerbaijan and the identical countries treat this mechanism in bad faith, assuming certain obligations without the appearance of the necessary political will. The main reason is that reforms in Azerbaijan are impossible. The requirements of the Council of Europe to reform contradict the very nature of the regime and threaten its existence.

What is the reason for holding free elections in the country? Well, after all, such elections do not meet their interests! Why does the regime, with its "total triumph" in the country, risk using a mechanism capable of defeating it? Again, by its nature, the Council of Europe is a structure designed to deal with issues related to the implementation of reforms, which, in the final analysis, contradicts the very essence of this regime. In this case, the relationship between CE and the regime demonstrates the impossibility of implementing reforms and only implies a farce called "reform", which, in turn, promises the country false hopes for real change. Fed by such illusions, people, after a while, either retreat due to the collapse of their illusions, or go to the camp of the enemy. And as a consequence, the withdrawal from the CoE is connected with the unfulfilled expectations, so that a situation arises that makes it necessary to identify new opportunities.

Secondly, the CoE is not an organization that makes radical demands; it prefers to pursue a policy of diplomatic balancing. It should be noted that the policy of balancing, carried out in relation to countries such as Azerbaijan, has a negative impact on the possibility of implementing any radical changes. In order to put an end to the anti-democratic regime in Azerbaijan, radical changes of an international character are necessary. In this sense, the Council of Europe has neither the authorities, nor the power, nor even the corresponding ideology. For this reason, secession from the CoE can save our country from possible damage as a result of the policy of balancing.

Thirdly, Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe, an organization with its international platform, gives the effect of legitimacy to this regime. One of the obligations of the democratic opposition is the task of weakening the legitimacy of the regime. Alfred Stepan points out this circumstance in his book on the tasks of the democratic opposition. Contrary to what has been said above, membership in international platforms increases this legitimacy. If we set the task of weakening the legitimacy of the regime, it is necessary to deprive it of the international platform.

- What is the benefit of Azerbaijan's expulsion from membership in the Council of Europe?

- The benefits provided by the CoE are very marginal. As a lawyer with experience of working with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), I can firmly state that the practical benefits of the ECHR are excessively overstated and mythologized. The experience with the ECHR on Azerbaijan does not affect about 95% of human rights violations in the country. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the ECHR is limited to formal allegations of violations of the rights of political activists in Azerbaijan. One of the main sources of human rights violations in Azerbaijan are non-political offenses. However, only a small part of them was brought to the attention of the ECHR. In addition, the ECHR unwittingly limits its powers by recognizing only the facts of formal offenses, without touching on the problem of legitimacy as the basis of offenses. In turn, this approach is to some extent flawed. In addition to the ECHR, the opportunities for practical benefit from the activities of other structures of this organization are mostly formal. The mechanism for implementing the decisions taken by the CoE is ineffective. As a consequence, the effectiveness of decisions made by the ECHR is often incomparably lower than the damage inflicted on the injured person.

- So, in this way, the authorities intimidate international organizations with their actions. Specifically, in his speech at the PACE session, Samad Seyidov noted that "we do not need such a Council of Europe". In your opinion, does the saying that "Azerbaijan should withdraw from the Council of Europe" mean that the interests of the authorities and the opposition coincide?

- These threats are related to the regime's activities. The task of the forces opposing the regime is not to succumb to these threats. In addition to the tasks related to the opposition's response to the regime's actions, the opposition must have a different agenda. It is not enough to limit ourselves to the agenda based only on the slogan "anti". It is for this reason that the opposition should form discourses outside its relations with the regime and provide a new international platform, taking into account possible opposition from the regime. Thus, the legitimacy of the political opposition can increase.

- However, even if the CoE punishes the guilty countries, it is not about excluding them from the organization. Even after Russia conquered the Crimea, the country was not withdrawn from the membership of this organization. Is, in your opinion, this fact not an evidence of injustice, a manifestation, as the authorities often say, of the ambivalent Western policy towards our country?

- The problems of other countries should not interest us. First of all, we must solve our own problems. As they say, "first deal with your own affairs, and then decide others." The task of the opposition is mainly to find and apply its own resources when solving its problems. Of course, we are influenced by other countries and factors. However, satisfaction of our own interests is our paramount task, and we must be guided, first of all, by this principle.

- Is it right to declare Azerbaijan solely responsible for this situation? Let's say that Azerbaijan has committed some actions that are incompatible with a certain ethics and principles. But the opposite side pandered to this opportunity. Do not the international organization and its members have equal liabilities?

- I expressed my attitude to this issue, answering the first question. The problem is not "a posteriori", but "a priori." The Council of Europe as "a priori" is not able to implement democratic changes in Azerbaijan or make recommendations on this issue. In other words, the Council of Europe does not have the opportunity to experiment with the reforms in Azerbaijan, because it does not have the necessary mechanism for this, and membership in this organization does not provide for carrying out experiments of this kind. The problems of the CoE are not connected with a personal factor, but are purely conceptual in nature, as this does not follow from its nature and essence.

- Let's say that Azerbaijan has left or withdrawn from the CoE. How to deal with those for whom the ECHR remained the last hope for solving their problems? What should be done with the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on violations of human rights in Azerbaijan? In particular, what should be done with the case of Ilgar Mammadov? After all, we are talking about people who suffered as a result of violation of their rights. In your opinion, is it possible to consider the exclusion of Azerbaijan from the Council of Europe the way out of the current situation? Is there no other possibility?

The commitments undertaken by Azerbaijan prior to the country's withdrawal from the Council of Europe, in particular, within the framework of the decisions taken by the ECHR, remain in force, and therefore the CoE has the right to demand their execution. The problem is that after Azerbaijan leaves the CoE, new commitments by the country cannot be accepted. It seems natural that the authoritarian regime in the country may become even more so. Yes, I do not deny it. The essence of my idea is that after the withdrawal of Azerbaijan from the CoE, the regime will lose its legitimacy. It is important to understand which of the cases of damage is most significant. In my opinion, the exclusion from the Council of Europe seems less damaging than staying with the organization. For this reason, taking into account the above arguments, the withdrawal from the CoE is most appropriate, especially as other international monitoring mechanisms continue to be applied in Azerbaijan.