ZDF: My question goes to the Foreign Minister of Armenia. You have just praised the adoption of Resolution on the Armenian Genocide by German Bundestag. Mr. Minister, could you specify what that means for the policy of Armenia?

Edward Nalbandian: Our policy is aimed at preventing new genocides and new crimes against humanity. This decision of the Bundestag is important not only for recognition and condemnation of genocides, but also it greatly contributes to the efforts of the international community towards their prevention. it was very meaningful to include a wording which compliments President Gauck’s last year’s statement on Germany’s recognition of its part of responsibility.. This was a very important step in the efforts of the international community aimed at preventing new genocides and crimes against humanity.

Armenia TV: My question goes to Mr. Nalbandian. During his recent speech President of Azerbaijan stated that he is ready to discuss the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s autonomy, that allegedly only an autonomous status within Azerbaijan may be granted to Nagorno-Karabakh, and he referred to the example of Nakhijevan. Aliyev said that this was the subject of talks during the meeting. What would you comment on that?

Edward Nalbandian: After each and every meeting with the Azerbaijani side, the Co-Chairs ask whether this time it will be possible to respect the agreements reached during the meeting. I always suggest to wait until the Azerbaijani delegation returns to Baku and see what kind of falsified speculations it will make. Only after that we will be able to make conclusions to what extent it would be possible to implement agreements and arrangements reached during the meeting. Unfortunately, today Azerbaijan, in fact, acts in a way that one of the Co-Chairs aptly characterized as pulling the rope over to its side or somehow trying to leave an impression on public opinion that the arrangements reached are in its favour. Such approaches cannot be conducive for the negotiation process.

Once Nakhijevan was densely populated by Armenians. Today it is completely cleansed of Armenians and the centuries-old Armenian cultural heritage was destroyed. Is this an example that today the leader of Azerbaijan brings as a perspective for Nagorno-Karabakh?

This is one of the vivid evidences why this could not and will never ever be a subject of negotiations. During the negotiations, we have never discussed and will never discuss the issue of autonomous status for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan, despite of what the Azerbaijani side misrepresents. The Co-Chair countries on the highest - the Presidential - level have stated on numerous occasions that the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh should be determined by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh through the free expression of will, which will have an internationally legally binding character. This is what Armenia says, this is what the Co-Chair countries are stating on the highest level. Then who is trustworthy? Azerbaijan or the international community?

Azerbaijani leadership presents its falsified theories, which were recently appropriately characterized by the representatives of the Co-Chair countries. Thus, there is nothing left to add.

Mediamax: I have two questions. First question is addressed to you, Mr. Nalbandian. There was a call, a rather absurd one, in the last statement of the Ambassadors, the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, urging not only Azerbaijan, but also Armenia to remove all remaining obstacles to the expansion of the team of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. How would you comment on that? And do those calls contribute to the implementation of the agreements?

Edward Nalbandian: I think, your question also contains a response. I will only add that it is obvious whom the Co-Chairs address their statement. Armenia has on numerous occasions positively responded to the creation of mechanism for investigation of ceasefire violations and the expansion of the team of Personal Representative and its monitoring mission. And that refers not only to the recent period. I would like to remind that even back in March and January of 2011 and 2012 - during and after the Summits organized by the President of the Russian Federation, with participation of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
I would like to recall that this was also emphasized by the Co-Chair countries last September when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in New York in the margins of the UN General Assembly together with the Co-Chairs. In their statement the Co-Chairs specifically underscored that Armenia has agreed to that proposal and urged Azerbaijan to do the same.

With regard to the latest agreements reached during the Vienna and St. Petersburg meetings I would like to note that, unfortunately, just after the summits Azerbaijan started to pretend as if such agreements were not reached and that the Co-Chairs expressed their own opinion.

Therefore, it sounds like Azerbaijan attempts to insist that Ministers of the United States, Russia and France made a falsification in their joint statement when they mentioned that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan took commitment and agreed upon expansion of Andrzej Kasprzyk’s team and creation of the investigative mechanism. Needless to say, it is clear, that the Co-Chair countries present what was agreed in Vienna. But, unfortunately, Azerbaijan attempts to backtrack. When on June 3, the draft decision concerning the expansion of the team was tabled in the OSCE’s corresponding committee in Vienna, Azerbaijan was the only country to block it.

The same happened on June 7, and then on June 22, meaning that Azerbaijan has rejected it for three times. The top leadership of Azerbaijan insists as if they are not aware what it is about and what the investigative mechanism means. I would like to remind you, that in their public statement of June 4 the Co-Chair countries mentioned that the detailed proposal on the mechanism has been handed over to the Foreign Ministers at the end of May and beginning of June. This was not the first time that the Co-Chairs make proposals on the creation of the mechanism. However, the Azerbaijani leadership pretends that it has neither seen nor heard anything. This is yet another demonstration of absurdity that you have mentioned.

Together with the Co-Chair countries and the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office we will continue our joint activities in this direction. Back in January the OSCE Chairmanship stated that it supports the proposals of the Co-Chairs concerning both the expansion of the team of Personal Representative and the creation of mechanism.

H2 TV: How do you assess the results of referendum held in the United Kingdom?

Edward Nalbandian: Regarding Brexit, I would say that this was the choice of the people of Britain, and we respect their choice. Each state is free to decide on the process of integration and the level of its involvement. Regarding Armenia, we will continue the efforts aimed at the further development and deepening of our cooperation with the United Kingdom, as well as the European Union and the EU member-states.

North-German TV: My question is addressed to the both Ministers. In your opinion, once resumed, how the negotiations could evolve?

Edward Nalbandian: Obviously, in case the 1994-1995 trilateral ceasefire agreements, which have no time limitations, are fully respected, and relevant conditions are met, namely the agreements reached in Vienna and St. Petersburg are implemented, then it will be possible to continue the negotiations. The essential goal of the negotiations is the exclusively peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on recognition and realization of the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination.

Sputnik: Question to both Ministers. How do you assess Erdogan’s letter to Putin regarding the Russian plane downed last year in Turkey? Does this indicate a change in Turkey’s policy?

Edward Nalbandian: The relations between Turkey and Russia are issues which should be discussed and resolved by the Russian and Turkish sides.

However, I would add that in recent years Turkey keeps creating new problems without addressing the very complex issues of the past, and putting itself in quite difficult situation, sometimes tries to find a way out. The problems created with all the neighboring countries, with the blessing and sponsorship of the Turkish leadership, lead to a situation, when the troubled legacy left by the former Prime-Minister is quite tangled, and long-lasting efforts are required to disentangle that knot.