YEREVAN. - The distortions of the facts and the one-sided approach of the reports by Walter and on Sarsang reservoir, which will be put to vote at PACE January session, is an active topic of discussion  today. At the same time, the institutional and functional shortcomings of PACE are not sufficiently presented.

First of all, it should be noted that settlement of conflicts is the priority of the OSCE, not of PACE, and the fact that PACE has, for some reason, "taken" a mission beyond its power, is more than illogical. It can be assumed that this is an institutional problem, because according to the rules set, all European supranational structures must not hinder each other's activities. In other words, they must not interfere in each other's affairs. Moreover, PACE has a commitment not to interfere in the OSCE Minsk Group activities (PACE resolutions and statements about the importance of not interfering in Minsk Group activities are indicative of this).

It should be noted that it does not refer to the humanitarian problems of the conflicts, in regard of which PACE has a defined broad field of activities. However, it should be noted that in this aspect as well we cannot talk about the effectiveness of PACE. Instead of establishing, developing and strengthening confidence building measures among the sides of Karabakh conflict, some PACE parliamentarians, having a particular interest, spare no efforts to politicize the humanitarian issues and make their constructive solutions impossible.

Unfortunately, some PACE MPs do not realize that such irresponsible behavior, particularly in conflict-related matters, directly affects the Karabakh conflict settlement process, the escalation of the conflict and even the maintenance of the ceasefire. Fortunately, the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, who deal with the conflict settlement, realize this, which is evident even in Warlick's statement that, "before publishing reports on Nagorno-Karabakh the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) should consult with the OSCE."

The dissatisfaction of the Co-Chairs is more likely justified, and those committees of PACE that have voted in favor of Artsakh-related reports, have made quite serious mistakes on this issue.  From both professional and ethical points, to put it mildly, it is not right to deal with any issue without holding regular consultations with the body, under whose jurisdiction the issue is  (over 20 years), and which is aware of all the nuances of the process. PACE and other institutions should have the perception that any issue related to the Karabakh conflict will not contribute to the conflict settlement process without being consulted with the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. On the contrary, it will hinder and in some cases make the issue even more complicated.

Summing up all the above-mentioned arguments, a question arises: isn’t it high time for Armenian delegation together with its partners to undertake reforms in PACE, due to which, PACE, without interfering in its partners' activities, will carry out its mission more effectively?

Armen Gevorgyan