Human Rights Watch publishes report on political request - Bahruz Maharramov

A few days ago, Human Rights Watch published a report full of allegations of ill-treatment of Armenian prisoners in Azerbaijan. For a Nobel Prize-winning non-governmental organization that has been defending and researching human rights at the international level for 43 years, it is a disgrace in the name of human rights protection to issue a politically motivated report without investigation, scrutiny, or rule of law.

According to international humanitarian law, an enemy soldier captured in a war is considered a prisoner. The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia ended on November 10, 2020, when Armenia signed a declaration of capitulation. After the end of the 44-day war, can a foreign citizen be arrested if he or she is arrested for attempting to commit terrorism and provocation on Azerbaijani territory, or even for killing Azerbaijani citizens for this purpose? For example, every year in Azerbaijan, a large number of foreigners are detained and prosecuted for drug trafficking, according to the logic of HRW, were they taken prisoner? So why did HRW remain silent about Dilgam Askerov and Shahbaz Guliyev, who have been illegally detained by Armenia for years?

Another important point is which prison did HRW visit where the alleged "prisoners" were kept? Which prisoner, who was dissatisfied with the conditions of detention and tortured, spoke?

Aren't the rights of those who died of tuberculosis in tents for years in this country as a result of the Armenian occupation and still live-in dormitories and schools? Why has HRW not once expressed concern about this? Maybe according to HRW "standards" they are not considered human?

Why did HRW remain silent for 30 years when Armenians poured river bombs to trap and kill minors in Azerbaijan, or sniped babies in their parents' arms, or involved their children in the 44-day war? There is an answer, because the target was Azerbaijan. The question is, why should the organization be biased against Azerbaijan? The reason is very simple. For this organization, the human factor, human rights are the last criterion. Whoever pays for HRW in the last 25 years also orders the song. The proof is very simple. According to HRW's financial sources, about 75 percent is funded by donations from North America, about 25 percent from Western Europe, and a small portion from other countries. North America and Western Europe are regions where the Armenian Diaspora has a great opportunity to influence the political environment, and, of course, the formation of almost the entire budget under the guise of donations at the expense of the forces in the region plays a decisive role. In addition, billionaire George Soros is the largest donor in HRW history with $ 100 million. It is no secret that Soros seized political power in Armenia. The humiliating defeat in the 44-day war dealt a huge blow to Soros' s interests at the same time. In this case, it is impossible for an organization that feeds on "donations" from Soros, the regions where Soros has influence, as well as the Armenian Diaspora, to demonstrate a healthy and honest position. I did not pay attention to the expression "donation" in vain. In general, there is a clear approach in law that accepting, directly or indirectly, material or other benefits for oneself or third parties for any action (inaction) in connection with the exercise of one's powers is no longer a bribe. A donation is a gratuitous, voluntary payment for the purpose of support. Soros's $ 100 million target, which allowed HRW to influence the organization, is certainly not a donation. In short, it seems that Human Rights Watch is not only engaged in the protection of higher ideals, such as the protection of human rights, but also racketeering under the guise of higher ideals.

Interestingly, after HRW, the European Parliament also calls on Azerbaijan to release "all" Armenian prisoners "on the basis of Human Rights Watch's opinion, without conducting any inspections or investigations. This is political disgrace. The European Parliament has been imprisoned for 30 years after the First Karabakh War. And why does the European Parliament remain silent about the 30-year occupation? In general, the European Parliament is silent on the 30-year occupation of a foreign country in Azerbaijan, which is recognized under international law, the fate of more than 70 hostages, more than 300 women and more than 300 elderly people. Why does it openly support the existence of armed groups? Isn't this an open support for terrorism? Look at the reality. Therefore, we must be vigilant.

The right way for this country is the way of Ilham Aliyev, as evidenced by all the nuances, from the 44-day war to the attack of Western "democrats" on Azerbaijan after the victory.

Bahruz Maharramov

Member of the Milli Majlis, Ph.D. in Law, Associate professors.