The EU Today article “’Expertise’ for sale: how to invent ‘genocide’” highlights the fact that the ex-prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno Ocampo cooked his “expert Opinion” on the so-called “genocide” of Armenian residents of Karabakh in just nine days, without even visiting the place where this “genocide” is allegedly taking place.
Many international media outlets (EU Today, Wprost, Sofiaglobe, Jauns, Telegraf, Informator, Focus, Unian and others) took interest in the response of Rodney Dixon, a leading lawyer and international law expert, KC at Temple Garden Chambers law firm, to Ocampo’s anti-Azerbaijani report.
Given that Ocampo resigned as prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in 2012, and since then the world media have mentioned his name only in the context of corruption scandals and covering up the interests of criminals, his words carry no weight. One of those who saw this and responded to his piece is Rodney Dixon.
Dixon’s legal assessment of Moreno Ocampo’s opinion includes five key observations that demonstrate the lack of credibility and the unsubstantiated nature of the allegations contained therein, notes EU Today.
The expert presents various arguments why the document should not be considered worthy of serious consideration, but the most important one is that, from the point of view of international law, genocide is out of the question in this case.
In turn, the Greek news agency Themanews emphasizes another important observation made by Dixon: the Ocampo Opinion is “patently selective in the ‘facts’ to which is refers”. Ocampo speaks of “genocide” without mentioning that there is another route, Aghdam-Khankedi, for the transportation of humanitarian cargo.
According to the Latvian publication Jauns, Armenia was not convinced by the international law expert’s position, and on August 11 it asked the UN Security Council to convene an emergency meeting on the issue, based solely on Ocampo’s report, which Dixon calls “false”.
Articles about the bias of the Ocampo Opinion were also published in the Ukrainian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish, Lithuanian and Moldovan media.
