Alernative лого
Start лого
South Caucasus
Mock Trial


Protocol of the Mock Trial
conducted in Tbilisi
on 19.06.2010
by participants
from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia

Plaintiff: Georgi Vanyan
Respondent: Emil Adelkhanov

Chairman: Niyazi Mehti

Comission members: Dilyara Mehti, Luiza Poghosyan, Govhar Geybatli, Rusiko Marshania, Irakli Chikhladze, Orhan Mehdizade, Artavazd Bayatyan, Lela Iremashvili

Implemented by
The Alliance of women for civil society - Azerbaijan
Caucasian Center of Civil Hearings - Georgia
Caucasus Center of Peace-Making Initiatives - Armenia
with support of
National Endowment For Democracy - NED

Plaintiff presents the case

Dear ladies and gentlemen! What are we afraid of?...

There is a journalist in Kyrgyzstan, Almaz Kalet, whose article-remark “Why do you keep silent? Why do you nervously react to any suggestion to reconcile?” could be found on our site. He was writing about one specific case, but the main point of the question is universal. Therefore, I am citing… civil organizations do not offer an alternative, they do not want this, they feel comfortable in the niche of state ideology. Though there are numerous NGOs in the Caucasus whose names contain the word “peace”. Why do you keep silent? Why do you nervously react on any suggestion to reconcile? Let’s talk, without any complaints or any accusations. If your Governments or politicians cannot come to an agreement, then you are to do it, if you are so developed, then there is no way to live in fright all the time and wait until you are bombed, since the Caucasian conflicts taken as examples it is obvious that no one is safe from war”. (the end of the quote)

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s ask ourselves! If we are so self-developed, then why do we live in fright?

We are all truly developed hence we know the meanings of the terms such as: a grant, democracy, human rights. We are so developed that we write and read, participate, show interest, set questions and give comments. We are developed indeed.

We realized what the democracy, human rights and freedom are really quickly. We realized what the European preciousness is really quickly as well, since it is our preciousness too. We are developed indeed.

Being Georgians, Azeri, Armenians, Ossetians, Abkhazians and others, who also live in the South Caucasus, we manage to work together, discuss various themes, corner-cut, smile, joke, are friends with each other, miss each other, meet, become happy when meet, help each other, correspond, ask if everything’s alright, and if it is then we are happy, if not – get sad, compassion. We are developed indeed.

We are not indifferent towards the things going on in a neighboring country; we are interested not only in the standards of living, but also in the democratization process. We are developed indeed.

We do respect each other, we are proud of each other, we admire each other. We are developed indeed.

We may well be sincere with each other. We are developed indeed.

We feel pain for the people, and not only for the people, but for our children, we are troubled with the situation, we do not want a war. We are developed indeed.

Then why do we live in fear?


Once upon a time there lived an artist in Azerbaijan. He painted pictures. The things went in a way that some Europeans decided to organize an exhibition of young South Caucasian artists. The exhibition took place in Tbilisi. There was no exhibition in Baku. And that is alright – no Armenians are allowed there, no Armenians, no Armenian paintings. Baku lets in only special Azeri – those ones who have a Kremlin visa. Well, this is another topic; let’s get back to the artist.

With hindsight, the South Caucasus exhibition was held in Tbilisi, not in Baku, but in Yerevan as well. The owner of already rented exhibition hall was contacted by authorized ‘patriots’ who said that it was improper to exhibit a painting by an Azeri artist. The owner informed the Europeans about this, they got surprised and ….dismissed the painting from the exhibition. It all went well.

And now let’s merely summarize it all. How many people from Armenia have taken part in peace-making projects in the past 10 years? Roughly speaking, how many Armenians have been seated at the same table with Azeri? And even more roughly speaking, how many people have ever had enjoyed feasts, got grants and royalties for representing Armenia (Armenian political scientists, youth, women, refugees, ecologists, veterans, generally speaking all peaceful and promoting peace Armenians) at the meetings, seminars or in the books or pamphlets in the format of negotiating with Azerbaijan. Shall we take a minimal number of 10 people a month? If we multiply it by 12 month, we get 120. If we multiply it by 10 years, we get 1200 people. It is very likely for you to object and say that this number is much smaller that 1200 since same people attend various projects. I would agree and take a compromise of 400 people. Considering the fact that many of them can be abroad at X o’clock, or can be attending various meetings with Azeri, lets divide this number by 2 and we get 100 highly developed urban dwellers. And they are not only developed people, but they are peace-keeping recidivists. A hundred of developed and influential people, most of whom are journalists, some of them are University lecturers, and the rest – members of NGOs.

Let’s imagine now, that those hundred people, when having got to know that a picture from Azerbaijan was dismissed from the exhibition in Yerevan and without making any preliminary arrangements, simply due to their self-development, make a public complaint concerning this matter. A hundred of people give press conferences, publish articles, and demand an immediate return of the Azeri picture to the exhibition. If these measures do not work – swap the exhibition hall, and the exhibition takes place in the fullest in Yerevan. I, once again, would like to draw your attention to the fact that developed people can show indignation not only collectively and in an organized manner but individually, to a certain extent of their possibilities without any pre-arrangements with others. And a hundred of those influential people (who can be aired on their own means of Mass Media, own offices, faxes, speak fluent English, French and German) create a precedent. They create a social pressure and solve the problem, solve it for once and for all, hence, if tomorrow someone decides, let’s say, to ban music because it’s Azeri – it will be the same. A public rumor on the fact is an alternative excluding any prohibitions.

Anyway, let’s get back to our story. These hundred people, of course, were not filled with indignation, yet, at least fifty of them knew about the fact of banishment since they were present at the presentation of the exhibition. At the reception there they expressed their concern in English, French and German, and went on doing so emotionally, bravely, heroically throughout the whole reception, blaming out reality. The reality in which they, developed people, simply suffocate. The reality in which they are both victims and heroes. Thus, paintings of Georgian and Armenian artists were presented at the reception called “The Peace Bridges” in order to use the pieces of art in the process of conflict resolution and reconciliation of Azeri and Armenian people. What’s more, there was a key element of the regional integration since the paintings of Georgian artists were presented there as well.

By the way, our artists from Azerbaijan felt relieved a few days later on learning that his painting has been dismissed from the exhibition – ‘who knows what might’ve happened if people in Azerbaijan had got to know that he was exhibited in Yerevan’…. He perfectly understood that him participating in the exhibition could be considered his recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh legitimacy and surrender of Azerbaijan’s occupied territories. He was a risky guy, and, thanks God, got away with it this time. The Azeri artist thanked in hearts Armenian patriots for such a timely initiative, and he was also grateful to his Georgian and Armenian colleagues at the exhibition and those 1200-800-400-200-50 developed Armenians for not showing public indignation. And that they did not leave him on his own with the problems of Nagorno-Karabakh all around him. Everything went well.

The Exhibition Project got its sequel in Brussels, where many influentially developed Europeans got amazed, showed tender emotions, got satisfied with the marvelous power of the Art. It unites Armenians and Azeri. They have to be praised. A festival, an orchestra, theater group, collaborative films are needed.

I would ask to be forgiven by representatives of the Art for making things clearly in such a negative way using art-projects as an example. And we are not talking about artists; it’s all about developed people, tolerant ones, free from stereotypes and prejudices - EuroArmenians.

We’re talking about a concrete case and absence of adequate and natural reaction to concrete cases. We are talking about a case when a whim of a faceless and authorized patriot gains a status of the law and is assigned to the whole Armenian society. And, the European part of this society publicly supports this by means of public silence. We are speaking exactly about this. The Euro-Armenians is a harmonious, respectable and quite numerous cohort of self-styled civil society supported the ultra-xenophobic acts by public silence. Strangely enough, but remains a fact, that exactly single acts, PR campaigns performed by marginal and insane xenophobes and by home-bred Nazis expand to enormous sizes, conquer the whole social field opened for them by the public silence of Euro-figures.

It hasn’t been like this all the time. At the buds the peace-making in the Caucasus carried a protest in itself; there was a healthy reacting practice, which was not suppressed by repressions but ….. by the peace-making itself. And now we have what we have - the public silence.

Thus, thanks to the public silence, the hurray-patriotic hysteria was created as non-readiness of the societies, non-readiness of the people for any changes.


Strange but fact. The ex-president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan’s saying on genetic incompatibility of Armenians and Azeri is being criticized by all, and by very developed Armenians in the first turn. But an adequate to the meaning of this saying activity, orientated towards the establishment of artificial conditions for Armenians and Azeri to communicate is not considered racism. However, one runs out of the other one – two neighboring nations are incompatible and this is bad, so, we need to work out a plan for compatibility. How do we work it out? Let’s take separately Armenians and Azeri and create a motivating atmosphere (career prospects, tourism, and curiosity) where they can meet. This may well be a laboratory testing on compatibility. The tests of this kind can pleasantly be called “peace-making”.

There is another question: how dangerous for mental health those experiments can be? Neither any Armenian nor any Azeri can be kept safe from the diagnosis – ‘post-traumatic syndrome’. Not only people, who lost their homes, not only participants of war activities and their families are traumatized. All who survived war activities are traumatized, and the new generation is not safe from traumas as well: when you are constantly being brain-washed there is a huge risk of getting nuts. Have you heard of the psychological rehabilitation projects? There were several small and precise attempts to conduct rehabilitation projects right after the war. There are nothing of this kind left due to the fact that, as it seems, a new war is ahead. And, instead of the rehabilitation we suffer constant depression of waiting a new war.

With such a background the expediency of periodically unifying and arranging meetings of our people by ‘the peace emissaries’ is not being discussed. The answers to the questions: who was meeting and is meeting today and why - can be summarized in the following way:

1. Who? The NGO reps. Why? In order to converse with the partners or on the basis of the projects which will lead to establishment of new partnership. These are, namely, corporate entertaining trips, hence the partners, as a rule, have nothing to discuss. The projects run simultaneously and independently.

2. Who? Mere people. There can be limitations such as age limits – the youth meetings, sphere of specialization – human rights activists. Why? In order to undergo an intensive course – trainings on tolerance, human rights, ecology, AIDS problems, and gender problems. The global topics, so to say. In these cases the aim is simple – avoid problems of the conflicts. People who suffered the conflicts are usually invited to take those courses.

3. Who? Political scientists and journalists. Why? In order to discuss a conflict.

In addition, numerous hybrid-projects are held, the purpose of which is hard to identify: corporate meeting, conflict discussions or training.

All projects run successfully.

Obvious misfortunes, scandals and failures are written off on the tense political situation or the wrong choice of the participants, besides the expediency of those meetings is never discussed. Consequently, there’s a room for natural selection which has led to a new type of human: homo projecticus, a projected human. His personality is not conflicting, obeying, not asking questions, easily getting used to any methods, a self-sufficient man. He is an ideal professional target for any peace-keeping project, as well as a portrait of an NGO rep organizing talks.

Meanwhile the balance between war and peace is not supported by projects, but by the presidents of our countries each of who has his own approach. The President of Azerbaijan does not start military actions. The President of Armenia excludes concessions, and, at the same time, accepts the fact that time after time the information leakage takes place during a negotiation process. The latter ones suggest that there is a possibility to make changes in a peaceful way, which does not let the President of Azerbaijan start the war even today.

Civil peace-keeping, as it is today, harmoniously fits into this reality. We are developed, we work hard, and, the homo projectus is the only outcome, who can survive in a new war, certify new victims and the very next day get back to the civil peace-keeping.

Bipolar disorder is not already a psychological trauma of the war, but of a so-called dialogue. The characteristics of a homo projecticus lead him to a necessity of putting his activity into the public mentality of the hurray-patriotism. The hurray-patriots, in their turn, ruled by an old Soviet habit take on the responsibility of being the best alternative to the whole governmental machine – penetrate the enemies’ camp for ‘studying the enemies’ weak sides and their mentality (i.e. persons of Azeri nationality)’ and hide their active, people-freeing temperament under the mask of a homo projecticus. The both cases are clinical.

I do believe that the beginning of a social class of this kind is the only present result of the peace-keeping projects. The condition of neither peace nor war is shocking itself, and this shock touches each individual to a certain extent. The years spent in this kind of condition have led our people to being indifferent and hopeless. The civil peace-making, much promising at the very beginning, was influenced by that shock itself and has turned into a sick, imitated process which does not only pushes off people who have or want to have a civil position, but also those ones who are intelligent and clever. It generates and patronages moral ugliness and speculation, cowardice and unscrupulousness, having been cultivated in our post-traumatic societies.

Throughout all those years there have been neither conducted nor published the researches illustrating mistakes and failures of the peace-keeping. There are many ways to find out about those mishaps and failures. You can read them between the lines of the reports and protocols; you can calculate them by means of your imagination and use of information extracted from the governmental lobbies. However, no mishaps and failures are officially certified. Meanwhile, the constant process of reconsideration of strategies of certain NGOs or networks, as well as sponsoring funds takes place. New formats are kicking off, whereas the old ones fall into obscurity. There is no possible way to find out where the old formats, on which a lot of money was spent, went wrong, why they were shut down. But as a result, these new formats and spheres, quite often declaring revolutionary ideas, close-circuit on the same activities as before. And, those activities exclude any possible novelty or alternative.

Why does it all go like this? Firstly, this is due to keeping secret inner problems and contradictions in the peace-keeping process itself; due to so-called political propriety and sensitivity of those problems based on the willingness ‘not to harm’ which has led to the eradication of the peace-keeping process over the past years. Under the very cover ‘not to harm’ the process was killed, eliminated.


There was hope at the very beginning. There was hope that polemics which was conceived right after the war, even the one about historical issues, could be liberated from propagandistic slang with the rapidly developing peace-keeping processes in the background. And, that multiple statements of differentiating versions and positions preserving the forms of polemics could expose the tacpoints and make us be closer to the truth. However, the buds of negotiations did not sink in the sea of the governmental propaganda. They sank in our fright, inability to trust each other. The more peace-keeping processes we have, the form of which is brain-storming, debates and discussions, the less polemics there is. Parallel, having nothing in common reports and unified by a nominal theme collections of articles, united only by a common cover (literary trash) are the only results of longstanding, multi-budgetary projects – awkward attempts to implant and adapt to Western experience. This is a conversation between the blinds and the mutes, considered a dialogue of the societies. I am not going to be concrete, in case you did not manage to participate in the projects, just look through the literary mackle-paper and you should understand everything.

Self-censorship is another quality of homo-projecticus, who is able to say nothing while speaking.


1. Phased peace-making

We happened to be buried by means of imagination that the tasks of the peace-keepers in Armenia and Azerbaijan should be alike and they should act reflectively. Armenia, nowadays, sees its interest in a more long lasting control over the disputable territories, according to this directive de facto control will be legalized and recognized de jure. When and how this should happen is not clear. There is no alternative today since it has not been shaped and discussed yet. Azeri party sees its interest in returning control over the disputable territories. There are no clear ways of doing it, but at least there is an answer to ‘How?’. Upon exhausting all possibilities to protect their interests in a peaceful way, Azerbaijan will start military activities. The issue of beginning of the war depends on a mere thing: whether Azerbaijan thinks the peaceful ways of conducting negotiations are exhausted or not. Hence, making peace in Armenia is one thing, and making peace in Azerbaijan is rather different one. Minimizing risks of running war for which all peace campaigns are run, any word, any action for peace in Azerbaijan represents peace-keeping. Conducting similar actions in Armenia, in this case, is not only ridiculous, but amoral as well.

Peace-keeping of Armenian side suggests the following:

- proposing political alternatives for conflict resolution;

- reconsideration of national priorities by means of inner dialogue;

- forcing out of military ethnocentrism from the social field.

The first leap should be done by Armenia.

Only after certain steps and concrete quality changes in Armenian social and political field, the initiative of processes of this kind can take place in Azerbaijan. This is a vital principle of phased peace-making ignoring of which has led the Armenian - Azeri dialogue to a dead end.

I would like to emphasize that the use of the term ‘Armenian side’ in this context has got a principal meaning. The problem which was named ‘the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District and around it’ at the beginning of the conflict does not exist any longer; it has transformed into Armenian – Azeri conflict, confrontation of two nations in all possible spheres of their vital activities.

That is why the field on which the processes of above mentioned directions should take place – overcoming the lack of political alternatives, initiation of the inner dialogue and the exclusion of ethnocentrism – is common, and there is no frontier between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. This is a common society, with the common problems. The consideration of recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as an independent and separate social and political unit is speculative. And yet, no one can formulate what can change in the negotiating process, if we let a third party to join it, namely the Nagorno-Karabakh party. The idea of specific and inner-social dialogue, as a process which may lead the dialogue to a more constructive and practical route, has, unfortunately, become deadly-born and any reanimation of it is speculative as well. At present there is not even one problem, nor a question which can be solved between the present-day (or previous) Armenian population and the previous Azeri dwellers of Nagorno-Karabakh. Only after an Armenian-Azeri dialogue will have taken place, after undergoing an above mentioned stage and the further consequences, can we initiate an inner social dialogue as a part of already accepted political program of conflict resolution by both parties.

2. The compensation – already today

We should establish a common right-protective field and initiate a unified process of the refugees and Forcedly Displaced Persons (FDP) returning or a compensation for the damages and inconveniences caused under the aegis at the international institutions. Why can’t it be the first stage of conflict resolution? Why can’t the human rights process be transformed into a political one on the following stage? Why do we think differently and postpone a solution of this humanitarian problem for such an indefinite time? The purpose of the civil peace-keeping is to lobby certain acts of their governments and overcome the setbacks which do not give these processes a chance to develop by means of new approaches, as well as establishing a social support for this. It is of a vital importance for the issue on material compensation and return to be included into the unified field. This unified field had to be created yesterday. However, the yesterday’s leftovers are only one-sided pretensions which intensify the conflict while merely being a part of an informational war.

The establishment of peace can undoubtedly become the most important moral compensation for the people, who have undergone this barbarian conflict. But are there any chances of having peace without getting used to the past? What do we need for this? What legal mechanism, what resources, what steps are needed in order to leave the past as it is, to drop the burden of the crimes committed? What can be a moral compensation for Sumgait, for Khodjala, for all other crimes, for executing innocent people, for tortures, for pillages and humiliation? We should start looking for the answers to these questions, start talking to each other about the things that we have never talked about before… today?

3. Mediation of Georgia

The dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan can only begin under conditions of the revival of the South Caucasus, the revival of regional thinking, the revival of regional integration and regional security. Georgia is a part of this region, and, moreover, its main player; and the dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as a social and political process, can only be held through Georgia’s direct participation in it. Georgia is not a neutral territory for meetings to be held and projects to be run, and the Georgian participants are not wedding generals and nor a buffer mass. Armenian – Azeri dialogue clearly needs Georgia, and both Armenians and Azeri do not need Georgia’s support, what they do need is Georgia’s participation in the dialogue. We ought to have a look at us from the Georgian point of view; we do need their evaluation and some advice. We need Georgia to make a breakthrough in the silence. Georgian neutrality equals to zero now. We do not need neutrality, we need participation.

Ladies and gentlemen! Supposing we are so developed, what are we afraid of then?

If you are afraid of taking and act, you are already a homo projecticus. And if it is really so, then I want you to leave, say nothing, write nothing and do nothing.

And, if you are afraid of being inactive, I suggest you talk, write, do something, and be more precise do the things noted in the articles 1.2.3. This is our escaping route out of a grave, while we are still alive.

Addressing to all, Chairman offers to ask questions to the Plantiff

Rusudan Marshania: What can you offer to do?

Georgi Vanyan: I suggest doing what a homo projecticus can’t do. Three areas that I have enumerated in the last part of my speech: phased peacemaking, compensation today and participation of Georgia.


Dear honorable judge, Dear honorable jurors, Dear public! it’s difficult to undertake the task.

First of all, it is not easy to defend my client after grave charges like these ones which my esteemed opponent has put forth.

In the second place, my mission is getting complicated by the fact that I, in comparison to my opponent, do not possess much experience in taking part in the so-called Armenian-Azeri dialogue, and, as a matter of fact, my experience in participation in the peacemaking process is small – and in some sense it is good: this may help me to retain more or less unbiased attitude towards the dialogue or the participants. However, I do not feel myself enough competent to judge some specific episodes imputable to my client’s guilt.

In the third place, it is not easy for me to call in question Giorgi Vanyan’s opinion – who is not only much more competent in this kind of questions than your most humble servant, but also is my friend and, on the whole, a great sweetie.

And, in the end, in the fourth place, ladies and gentlemen – if only you could have seen what computer I had used to type this speech! This is not a computer, ladies and gentlemen; this is a dirty scum that is racking me and is shortening my life.

Well, with a heavy heart, I embark on defense. I’m asking you for indulgence for my client not for acquittal. I totally agree with you that my client – peacemaking movement of South Caucasus – has not lived up to our expectations entrusting to him by some naïve people. Moreover, I strongly agree that some (but pay heed to the fact that not all) activities of my client cry out to the skies (I won’t go into details for I am here to defend and not to charge), but where is that flinty heart that will stay merciless towards the mistakes and delusions of the youth and will not take into consideration circumstances extenuating the guilt of this young man? I ask you to display mercy and take into account his miserable childhood, his bad heredity: just imagine what shit he came out of and what shit he has been raised in - I’m pretty sure that your verdict will be: guilty but recommended for mercy.

You’ll say: he is not a child anymore; he is at least 20 years old. But ladies and gentlemen, being 20 years old is not an age; many of my former classmates here in Tbilisi at 20 have just learnt how to lace their shoes on their own. You will say - he does not look like a youth, he positions himself as being a very respectable man. You are absolutely right – he does not possess a youthful ardour, but as you know, ladies and gentlemen – there are such old-looking youths. And, as you have already noticed old-looking guys often are infantile. I have drawn your attention to his age not only to make you feel sympathy for the youth of our accused, but also to say that he is not hopeless, he has much to follow! And we will see his success when he grows up; what a fine young man he will become in 20 years, and if not in 20 then in 120 or 220 years - but he will definitely become one!

Yes, my client is guilty but not ill-intentioned. What specific accusations does Mr Vanyan impute? Is this the point that he has used up money obtained by European, Alabama and other taxpayers’ hard work? But, ladies and gentlemen, I’m pretty sure that he impeccably has reported back to the last penny and not even one penny was spent past the budget of the project. I agree that lots of shish kebabs were eaten, much wine was drunk – but within the frames of the project agreed with the donors. You could accuse him of squandering but not of evil embezzlement. (Speaking of the wine: I personally think that it wasn’t always enough fine for demanding tastes – but this is the subject for a separate case). Is this the point that this money was spent for nothing? But what does this mean: “for nothing?” Allow me cite the words of one of the greatest mathematicians of the present, the eminent specialist concerning the numbers theory, academician I. M.Vinogradov. When he was asked what benefit the numbers theory had brought (and that was when nobody knew that this theory would underlie the postwar computing mathematics), he answered: “The great benefit. It, for example, has made possible for me to feed my family of 5 members for 20 years.” Try and remember the loyal drivers, who had been taking the participants of our dialogues across the boarders for years – and you know that each of them had a family! But the benefit of course is not exhausted due to this nongovernmental dialogue. I will dwell at length on his main achievements at the end of my speech, but for now I will answer on Mr. Vanyan’s main charges.

Mr. Vanyan blames us for working for appearance’s sake. Yes, we often work for appearance’s sake. But maybe he thinks that if not for the sake of appearance then all the conflicts will be settled?

What does Mr. Vanyan actually incriminate to my client? That the conflict has not been settled for 20 years? Let me ask – when and what conflicts were settled as a result of the activities of nongovernmental organizations? Irish? Palestinian? And as you know the entire networks of nongovernmental organizations – local and international – work on the settlement of those conflicts. Can we say that the Cypriot conflict has been settled if the Turkish Republic of the North Cyprus has not been recognized so far except Turkey, Abkhazia and the Nakhechevan Autonomous Republic?

My opponent says that “civil organizations do not offer initiatives”. But I don’t think you can reproach me for not having offered the castle in Provence or at least Arabic stallion to anyone so far. In order to offer something, one needs to have it at his/her disposal. Mr. Vanyan says: “You must do this if you are so developed.” What gave him the idea that we are so “developed”? Only because we consider ourselves as such? It’s no good to laugh scoff at a sick man, Mr. Vanyan!

He asks: “Why do we live in fear?” But this charge misses the mark. As a matter of fact, we, participants of the civil dialogue not in the least are afraid of recommencement of the war – or, at least are not so afraid – or let’s say not all of us are afraid. Just look at how soldierly we have endured the recommencement of the Georgian-Ossetian armed conflict. Have any of us died from indignation? (Moreover, in a month one of us told the other: “Oh, come on, admit how happily our hearts have started pounding when you knew that our soldiers had already entered Tskhinvali?”)

And if we are talking about fears – yes, we do have fears, but these are not those fears. Many of us have a fear to lose touch with our people. And this is a well-grounded fear: we are worlds apart from our people and this is the only way we are similar to Decembrists. We can’t get along with either our ultra-nationalists or our residents. In other words – we are members of a marginal social group, ladies and gentlemen, and we know this as we do not like going out to the square. I, personally, came out to the square once with peacemaking intentions – to Rustaveli square on the day when there was a smell of gunpowder on Inguri border – it seemed as if ours are ready to begin “operation concerning establishment of constitutional order” in Abkhazia (to say the truth, that time, compared to August 2008, our lot didn’t use this Putin wording). We were together with a few nice chaps, students of the Sukhumi University in exile and three women – in particular, Marina Elbakidze – and that’s all! We glued the monument of Rustaveli over with posters “No more war!” – but passersby were busily passing and nobody cared about posters or war. And once again we have received evidence that we are marginal people.

There is one more hidden fear – at least some of us have: the fear that one day after all these hangouts you will be announced a spy – as Lia Tskhovrebova was once announced in Tbilisi and Alana Parastaeva – in Tskhinvali. I guess, Gevork Ter-Gabrielian could tell us a little more about this. And not only him.

Despite this the dialogue hasn’t been broken off for 20 years and this single fact deserves all kinds of respect. Yes, I think we might have done little (actually not so little), but nobody can reproach us for the absence of persistence. And Giorgi who has repeatedly experienced what the ostracism is – is the best example. If he doesn’t like civil dialogue and peacemaking movement – then why on earth didn’t he leave it all? Thus, my client is not such a complete scoundrel; this means that he does have something good, something partly to be atoned for all the shortcomings and failures. This I will mention again later in my report but, for now, let me have a few words about unbiased circumstances, extenuating his fault.

From the very beginning the peacemaking movement had something artificial. We have learnt this according to some special literature, which nobody except us will read not for the world and we have become so professional in this that we started writing similar leaflets ourselves. In other words, we have become professionals at once. And we know that peacemaking is an occupation not for professionals. A professional pacifist – is contradiction in adjecto. The best pacifist poem was written by Marina Tsvetaeva (whose name does not appear in any specific literature) and not by Berta Fon Zutner who is an acknowledged classical writer of pacifism. Yes, we have become professionals – even so we so far haven’t chosen language which we could use to comprehend and describe all observed: we still express ourselves on a terrible blend of lexis of the Soviet internationalism and our national activists and patriotic historians. This language is densely seasoned by international jargon (such words as “conflict transformation” and “actors”). Meanwhile, we still haven’t agreed with each other how to name, for example, the border along Inguri – let’s say for Georgians it is an “administrative border” and what about Abkhazians? And between what is this border – between Georgia and Abkhazia? We are doomed to write and think on this language – after all this could you accuse us for anything? Thank goodness that there still is a normal human language which we use to talk to each other during our hangouts.

We have been trying to get out some initiatives and ideas for years, overcoming all kinds of complexes, and we have been writing recommendations having known that our official thinkers and strategists and also unofficial public avengers from the forestry headquarters do not read them and they can any time give us a surprise – we have just been writing for conscious sake. And we’ve been exhausted – and this is natural. And after all this who could blame us?

And tell me, Georgi – do you think it would have been better if this hadn’t happened at all? Let’s make an imaginary experiment: let’s imagine what would have happened if this process hadn’t been initiated – would it have been better or worse? And what will happen if this process finishes today – will it be better or worse?

With your hand upon your heart it can be said that some benefit has still taken place. We haven’t achieved conflict settlement, but, as some scientists say, a negative result is also a result (or as one late doctor said: a Rhesus negative - is also a Rhesus): we didn’t show what actions result in conflict settlement, though we showed what actions may result in its settlement - and this is worth a lot.

We haven’t achieved conflict settlements, but in the process of this dialogue we could create atmosphere assisting in numerous private, so called “petty” problems’ solutions for particular people, and this is much more significant than all these large-scaled actions that are indeed held for appearance’s sake.

Let me give an example. One Sukhumi refugee died in Tbilisi, and his daughter should have been informed when and where he had been buried. I’m calling Batal Kobakhia in Sukhumi. If only we have been name and surname for each other, he might not have reacted on this call from the hostile capital – you never know what provocation could be expected. But I say: “Batal, my dear friend, that’s the story, we need your help”. And Batal helped. He, of course, grumbled as usual but helped us at the end.

I’m not talking of the fact that these meetings allowed us to overcome prejudices and stereotypes and simply saying expanded our mental outlook. And the most important thing is – at least for me – that they gave me possibility to meet and make friends with wonderful interesting people – and this is worth of something. Sometimes I was even given a chance to display my civil courage and set an example for others, shake somebody’s notions that the nation is ueber alles. Can you imagine if you didn’t have such an example?

I don’t know whether I could get over your prejudice towards my client, but peep into your hearts, dear jurors: which of you hasn’t ever been his accomplice? Do we really need to denounce him?

Once a wise man said: What can be beyond the fairness? He himself gave an answer: Mercy. I am asking you again and again: let your verdict be guilty but recommended for mercy!

Supplement. A few words on a section of accusation entitled as “What to do or three ways out of the grave”. It was a noble deed from Mr. Vanyan’s side to give the accused a chance to improve – it’s not the task of prosecutor to suggest ways out and, please, agree that it’s not the task of the counsel for the defense to criticize them. Nevertheless, allow me to stop on some of suggestions of my respectable opponent.

“Promotion of political alternatives”. Are you still sure that we are able to promote them?

“Reconsideration of national priorities”. Ok, but … as one poet said: In order to change priority, AUTHORITY is needed. We do not possess one yet.

“Exclusion of military ethnocentrism from the social field”. Ok, but … for this we again need to have AUTHORITY.

A few words of the NKO problem. Mr. Vanyan says: “NKO problems do not exist anymore”. Let’s specify: from the very beginning, when the mess started and refugees gushed out, Karabachos conflict has been transformed from territorial conflict into classical ethno conflict, and this is not the point what territory fell or will fall to whose lot, but the point is that representatives of two nations, to put it mildly, “are not fond” of each other due to ethnic reason.

You assure that today we don’t have any problems that could be solved in the dialogue between Armenian and Azeri people of Karabachos. I’m not a major specialist on Karabachos problem and I can only judge according to an analogy with Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. It seems that there is not any problem as well, but we have to do justice to truly Sisyphean toil of those who tried to find such a problem. And if they haven’t come to an agreement what specific problem they could solve then side result of these discussions has repaid the spent time with interest.

And, finally about the Georgians. You write: We need to look at ourselves with the eyes of Georgians, we need their assessment, their advice”. The Georgians are surely nice guys but if I were you I wouldn’t set our hopes on them – at the end of the day we don’t give a hoot for your problems.

Addressing to all, Chairman offers to ask Respondent any questions.

Artavazd Bayatyan: Well-known Mother Teresa was repeatedly saying: “I won’t ever go to the peace meeting because this is exactly where a war starts”. Without participation of the world country leaders nowhere in the world there could be a war and peacemaking processes, as they possess uncontrolled flow of finances, weaponry with the help of which they carry out their geopolitics. Isn’t it so? Does it seem as if those who finance ethnic wars also finance peacemaking activities?

Emil Adelkhanov: No, it doesn’t.
The Chairman announces about voting.

Who considers arguments and views of Claimant more well-grounded?

For - 13
Against - 11
Abstained - 1

Chairman: The voting shows that the criticism of the civil peacemaking activities is not groundless. Thank you all.