Lire le verdict en bas de page

Un procès historique en Suisse

Un procès sans précédent s'est ouvert le 4 septembre 2001 devant le Tribunal de Berne. Pour la première fois en Suisse, la justice va aborder la question du génocide arménien que 17 représentants d’associations turques sont accusés d’avoir nié dans une pétition aux Chambres fédérales. Il aura fallu quatre longues années de procédure avant que la plainte déposée en 1997 par l’Association Suisse-Arménie (ASA) sur la base de l’article antiraciste (article 261 bis du code pénal Suisse) ne trouve son épilogue judiciaire. Jusqu'ici, cette disposition n'avait été retenue que contre ceux qui nient l'holocauste.

Les premiers prévenus interrogés ont affirmé devant la Cour que la pétition qu'ils ont soutenue reflétait l'opinion de la communauté turque en général et que c'est ainsi que l'histoire de la Turquie leur avait été enseignée. Le président de la Coordination de quelque 80 associations turques en Suisse, co-auteur de la pétition, a expliqué à la barre n'avoir pas eu conscience de contrevenir au Code pénal suisse qui sanctionne ceux qui chercheraient à justifier un génocide ou d'autres crimes contre l'humanité.

La pétition des associations turques répondait en 1996 à une demande d'associations arméniennes en Suisse adressée au Parlement l'année précédente pour qu'il reconnaisse comme génocide les massacres des Arméniens à la fin de l'Empire ottoman. Entre 1915 et 1917, ces violences ont provoqué la mort de 500.000 à 1,5 million de personnes. En réponse, les associations turques, dans leur pétition, affirmaient que "parler de génocide déformait profondément la vérité historique" et que "le gouvernement ottoman n'avait jamais eu l'intention d'exterminer les Arméniens". "Nous ressentions la pétition arménienne comme une campagne de diffamation. Nous avons voulu rendre public notre point de vue", a indiqué à la barre l'un des prévenus. Selon lui, il n'était pas question de "vouloir dénier quoi que ce soit, ni blesser les Arméniens". "Je serai prêt à discuter avec des individus, mais je n'ai pas à m'excuser pour l'statement de ce qui représente la pensée dominante en Turquie", a ajouté le président de la Coordination.

Pour les plaignants, Aram Djambazian et Sarkis Shahinian, deux Arméniens vivant en Suisse, ce procès constitue une nouvelle étape vers la reconnaissance par la Suisse du génocide. "Beaucoup de pays ont reconnu le génocide arménien. Je ne demande pas que la Suisse le fasse aujourd'hui"hui, mais qu'elle étudie cette possibilité. Cette démarche va me permettre d'enterrer moralement mon père", a déclaré Aram Djambazian, dans une interview au quotidien Le Temps. Les plaidoiries et le réquisitoire sont prévues vendredi et le jugement est attendu le 14 septembre.

Pour en savoir plus :
http://www.armenian.ch/~gsa

Le verdict
(anglais)

Résumé en français : Douze Turcs accusés de négation du génocide arménien ont été acquittés. En 1996, ces représentants d'associations turques en Suisse avaient nié -dans une pétition- que l'Empire ottoman se soit rendu coupable d'un génocide contre le peuple arménien en 1915. Le juge du Tribunal de district Berne-Laupen a estimé qu'ils n'avaient pas enfreint la loi contre la racisme. Les plaignants ont d'ores et déjà annoncé qu'ils feraient appel. Le juge a expliqué que la loi punit seulement ceux qui nie ou minimise un génocide dans un but discriminatoire ou raciste. Pour lui, ne telle intention n'est pas apparue chez les accusés Turcs.

Bern, September 17, 2001

THE VERDICT
12 leaders of 8 Turkish associations accused for denial of the Armenian genocide were acquitted Friday, September 14, 2001.
The verdict in the lawsuit dealt with by a penal Court in Berne, Switzerland, was disappointing for the Armenian community of Switzerland. Not only, couldn‘t the Judge find any discriminatory motivation for the denial of the genocide in a petition submitted to the Swiss parliament in 1996. He also didn’t explicitly recognize this genocide of 1915, saying that question could be left open. Judge Ochsner did recognize it implicitly saying the documents submitted by the private plaintiffs were credible sources for the genocide, and he wondered why the authorities hadn‘t recognized it in the light of the historical facts.
But he said he couldn’t explicitly call it genocide since neither Parliament, nor government had formally recognized it. Instead the government calls it „tragic events“. Nevertheless, he regarded the objective facts (whether genocide has been denied) as being fulfilled. Because of the petition‘s wholesale, undifferentiated and apodictic character there was at least gross reduction.
The petition can also cause tensions between the communities and it is understandable that it raises emotional concern. On a general level, he argued that the Swiss anti racism law wasn’t clear enough and that this lack should not have negative consequences for the accused. He suggested the parliament could amend the law and further define what should be considered genocide.
On the matter of the subjective facts, the question whether the denial has been done for discriminatory motives, Judge Ochsner followed the line of the district attorney and the lawyer of the defense, who both had pleaded for an acquittal based on their belief that no malevolent motives were involved. For Ochsner, at most there was „stubborn nationalism“.
The Judge said that their main motive seems to have been to counter the Armenian petition, which is an understandable reflex. The Turkish government, professors, journalists and schools disseminate their one-sided depiction of history. They had an unreflected and ideological view of history. Of course there would have been other sources available for the accused here in Switzerland, but they are not historians and intellectuals. They are average people, among them a bus-driver and factory workers. Mentioning the Bernard Lewis trial of Paris in 1995, he said there it had played an important role that Lewis was a historian. Important professorial comments speak out for treating knowledgeable and non-knowledgeable deniers differently.
Art. 261bis of the Swiss penal Code only punishes acts committed with intent, and not those done for negligence. After the verdict was pronounced, Dr. Bertossa who represents the Armenian private plaintiffs announced his appeal.
It could take between six months and over a year until the higher Court of the Canton of Bern decides about this case. Judge Ochsner had started the session at 9 AM, by making three preliminary remarks.
Regarding a newspaper article, which suggested he could write history with his verdict, he said, „I‘m not here to write history but to apply law.“ Regarding a phone conversation with the Turkish Embassy he said it’s documented in the file and he let his note on the incident be read out to the public. It said the Court had received a request from the Embassy for a meeting.
The Judge replied that informal conversations in an ongoing case were not possible, especially not with non-involved third parties. The conversation was ended when he said that in Switzerland the juridical system is completely independent, and that they only had the right to use the diplomatic channels. He further said that he has the task now to analyze this case juridically and historically, and he deplored the „unspeakable and sometimes unbearable solitude of the Judge in front of world history“, and the „expectancy, that a Judge should rule, where politicians remain silent for whatever reasons.“ He closed his remarks by saying „the true greatness of a country only shows when it has to treat the dark chapters of its history. But this is only possible when there is a climate of openness and freedom.“ He cited private plaintiff Aram Djambazian‘s wish that one day the prime ministers of Turkey and Armenia would shake hands and that there will be reconciliation. He honored his greatness, which gives hope for Human dignity.
At a press conference Dr. Bertossa said, „the excuse not having know anything, may not be valid“ and „the repeated denial by four of the accused leaves hardly any room for other than discriminatory motives.“ He said „it was invoked that the parliament hadn’t formally recognized the genocide, and that this could represent an obstacle for a judge to call the genocide by its name. This claim is inadmissible.“ The reasoning by the Court seemed scary to him. Appeal had to be done; "otherwise it would be admissible in the future that people deny a genocide saying they had never heard anything else. It should not be admitted that someone may challenge the existence of a genocide and rely solely on the view of the successor of the involved state."
Angeline Fankhauser, the co-president of Association Switzerland – Armenia, said she would discuss ways to bring this up in parliament again „in order to end the unworthy back-and-forth between the branches of our institutions.“ Private plaintiffs, Aram Djambazian and Sarkis Shahinian, along with other representatives of the Armenian community, expressed their disappointment.
They said they would continue their struggle, and that it was time for all instances to speak a clear word.
Source : Association Suisse Arménie ASA