Question: Mr. Kocharian, so, Azerbaijan in its usual style is making a noise over the opening of an airport in Stepanakert. Yesterday the President of the Republic touched upon the speculations over the Stepanakert’s airport, mentioning that such kind of statements befit the terrorist networks, but never to a state or head of state. Serzh Sargsyan stated that he – the President of the Republic of Armenia-will be the first passenger of the first flight to Stepatakert. The response of Baku, as we can see, matured а little bit. What is the assessment of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Sh. K. We are registering the fact that, it seems, that rationality is getting the upper hand in Baku, and not the emotional or macho approaches, which have no perspective. Anyway, the flights will be.

Question: Mr. Kocharian, the OSCE Minsk Group recently presented the report on field assessment mission, rather a summary of a report. As I know, the full version of the report has not been published yet. Was it presented to the Armenian authorities?

Sh. K. Yes, it has been presented to both Armenian sides – the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

Question: And after the publishing of the report’s summary, Azerbaijan again hurried up to make statements with some reservations. How does the Armenian Foreign Ministry assess that report?

Sh. K. We have already officially made its evaluation. First of all, the disinformation and propaganda means used by the Azeri side as if in those territories there are so-called narco-traffic ways, nuclear waste storages and some camps of terrorist groups in those areas, were denied. In fact this whole area is under the government control. There is a regular army and in contrast to Azerbaijan, which used mercenaries of the well-known international terrorist centers, nearly 2,000 people, during the war the Karabakh side won a victory by the regular army and volunteers.

Question: Mr. Kocharian, the Azerbaijani side is continuing to conduct provocations in the line of contact; the ceasefire is violated, as well as some tricks are made. I mean the increased noise that by the shot of the Armenian soldier, a nine-year-old child was killed. The show has a rather poor quality. The Head of our country gave a summarizing answer to it. And there is an impression that besides the restraining, sometimes retributive actions implemented by Armenia, no other countermeasures, it seems, are undertaken against Baku, is it?

Sh. K. You know, actually Azerbaijan continuously keeps itself isolated by similar steps. Look. A huge noise is made, and then the investigation on this case of the death of a child is prevented. As it was impossible for the sniper to shoot from the Armenian positions with such an accuracy, wasn’t it? It is such a great distance and the Karabakhi positions are so low that it is simply impossible. It is not accidental that the Azeri side has done everything to make impossible the investigation of that fact, that incident and any other similar incidents, as the truth would become clear. It is similar to the incidents in Khojaly when they conducted a massacre of their own population in the area that was far from the control of the Karabakh army and until now they are trying to make a big noise about those incidents in Khojaly.

This was very similar to the case of this child, but on the other hand, each time after making a similar noise and avoiding from the investigation, Azerbaijan itself is isolated, opposed to the international community. It is no coincidence that it is offended from everyone, the mediators, the Minsk Group and neighbors ... And it will be continued as long as Azerbaijan lives in the virtual world, detached from reality and is trying to distort everything, dictating its understanding of the international law, his versions of history, even geography to move forward. It has no prospect.

Question: Mr. Kocharian, can you summarize our assessment, steps and expectations regarding the current situation?

Sh. K.: You know, the current situation is such that progress depends on the readiness of the sides to hold a constructive dialogue. The Armenian sides- the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Armenia – have done their utmost to move forward by that compromise version. I can list shortly. The first is that it would be very fair that before the negotiations Azerbaijan returned the occupied territories of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. By the way, referring to your previous question, I would like to note that a similar field assessment mission is expected to be conduct in those areas, as well.

The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs also assured about it. It means that the mission should be conducted in the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which have been occupied by Azerbaijan. Next, it would be very fair, if Azerbaijan returned these territories, and it would be a certain proof that Baku will not attempt to empty Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh any more. In order to save the face of the Azeri authorities, the mediators proposed to hold a so-called delayed referendum, the results of which should be binding for all sides. Finally, I would like to recall that recently, the President of the Republic of Armenia stated that we are ready to move forward on the basis of three principles - non-use of force, self-determination and territorial integrity.

And what is the Azeri side saying? It is constantly talking about the use of force , which does not scare the Armenian sides and secondly, it is giving a very peculiar interpretation on self-determination of nations and imaging to see Karabakh only as a part of its territory, and third, it is accepting the territorial integrity, but with its peculiar interpretation. So we can not move forward this way. If I add one more factor, it follows that Baku is constantly trying to discredit the OSCE Minsk Group and tracking the issue to the other instances. It becomes clear that the prospect due to the fact that Azerbaijan also shows a constructive approach regarding this issue.

Question: It means that Azerbaijan should get rid of subjective idealism?

Sh. K. Of course, because one can not always assume that he creates the international law, writes history and geography. It is not so?