GENOCIDE ENACTED BY LAW

— Mr. Khachatryan, in your articles (https://dzen.ru/a/aSheeuWDTj5V_rdI, “The Future Is Decided by Values…”) you wrote that catastrophe is inevitable and that many peoples and states will suffer. You warned that the world is teetering on the brink of a third world war, and that the situation could still be reversed if the nuclear powers sat down at the negotiating table and took responsibility for humanity’s security.A few days ago, Trump raised the possibility of a third world war and proposed a plan under which the “Group of Seven” (G7) would be replaced by a new structure—the G5—comprising, first and foremost, Russia, the United States, and China. In light of this, one must ask: why do you continue to maintain that humanity cannot be saved?

The number of global flashpoints continues to grow, and it will likely be some time before the nuclear powers convene at the negotiating table and assume responsibility for the fate of the world. Regarding your question, the real issue is not whether predictions come true, nor is it simply about Trump coming to power in the United States and the subsequent dismantling—or, more accurately, transformation—of an outdated system. The central question is far deeper: what is the very foundation of Humanity?

Allow me to explain.The other day, while watching television, I happened upon a program in which a man spoke about love—love for one’s mother, one’s homeland, a partner, and more—as a profound emotion, a source of life’s meaning, and a connection to eternity. I do not usually watch such programs, but this one immediately captured my attention: he spoke with genuine sincerity, from the heart, not merely for performance. The speaker was Stas Namin. I do not know him personally, but I am aware that he comes from a prominent family, has witnessed much in life, and has endured significant experiences.

What, in your view, is the most important aspect of a modern person’s life? What serves as their guiding principle—the eternal and spiritual, or the material? The answer is, in many ways, obvious. Yet the ordinary citizen cannot be blamed; for most, life has become survival, governed by the rules of a pervasive matrix. The lawmakers within this system—whether in the Senate, the House of Lords, the European Parliament, or Russia—are all well-off individuals who enact laws that protect material interests while having little to do with justice. In effect, these laws often shield global crimes, at levels ranging from the national to the international.

What I find difficult to understand is why, in Russia—having grotesquely adopted, in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR, a foreign Western financial and legal framework—these norms continue to operate even today. This is happening even as the phenomenon of the Defender of the Fatherland has been revived (https://explosionnewss.com/eto-zhizn/, “This Is Life…”), a development that fills both the President and the people with pride. It is worth asking: how many dollar millionaires are there among the families of these Defenders of the Fatherland, and how many among the lawmakers? And, ultimately, which of them truly represents the people?

Let us take the Russian–Ukrainian situation as an example. I am not here to debate who is right or wrong; rather, consider the reality: the horror unfolding between two Slavic nations is, in essence, war and destruction, with countless lives being lost. Meanwhile, the West supplies weapons and trains military specialists—teaching people how to kill—and this is deemed “normal.” Yet the European Union cannot confiscate frozen Russian assets held in Europe, as doing so would be considered a crime. One European leader even stated that seizing these assets would constitute a direct declaration of war on Russia. It appears that money is protected by international norms, while laws that safeguard states and human life are lacking. This, in my view, is why Humanity has already been sentenced to destruction.

You have, of course, heard about my program—the creation of so-called Brain Centers around the world, intended to replace foreign ministries, state departments, and international organizations such as the UN, which have proven ineffective in today’s realities. Recently, I called Tbilisi to speak with the son of a friend, seeking his advice about a young man who had been recommended to me as intelligent and potentially suitable for work in a Brain Center. Although he did not know the young man personally, he had apparently gathered some information. Do you know what he said? “He is indeed a very smart person, but he has no influence.”

My friend Ilya Gvarishvili—sadly, no longer with us—held a high position and wielded enormous influence in Georgia, yet money did not interest him; he was a model of integrity and spirituality. I love his son as if he were my own, so I said only this: “It’s excellent that he is intelligent, and influence is a temporary pleasure for a person—one that rests on wealth and power.” I am sure he understood everything perfectly.

I have been thinking that, if you write this article and accurately convey my ideas, I will submit it to the Chief Prosecutor of the ICC as a formal appeal. This is connected, as you know, with my ongoing court case in Armenia—please forgive me for speaking personally; it is uncomfortable, but illustrative when comparing the material and the spiritual, and what ultimately “prevails” in the modern world. The previous three presidents shielded themselves behind Russia, while the current authorities rely on the European Union, European courts, and the prosecutor.

According to my lawyers, three presidents attacked me and took every possible measure to have me arrested in Russia on charges of terrorism. My home in Yerevan—where six minor children lived—was, within the territory of the state itself, surrounded for six months by soldiers armed with automatic weapons. Unable to withstand the pressure, my mother took her own life. Meanwhile, property was illegally removed from the house “for safekeeping” and transferred to the Ministry of Defense and the Presidential Administration. Where it ultimately went and who is responsible remain unanswered to this day—over thirty years later.

All of this is supported by documents and witness testimony, and my lawyers are confident that we could potentially secure hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. Yet there is a deeper aspect: this attack on my family was intended to destroy me. In my articles, I had warned that current policies would lead to the war in Ukraine, the conflict in Georgia, the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the escalation of the Israel–Palestine conflict. Eight years ago, I also predicted that Trump would rise to power and that the global system as we know it would collapse. I wish to address the ICC to explain the reasons behind the state-sponsored terror and plunder inflicted on my family, but I am unsure how to proceed.

Had I not been imprisoned and persecuted for more than twenty years—a reality that inevitably frightened people away—I might have found like-minded politicians who would have understood and trusted me. Together, we might have been able to prevent at least some of what has since occurred. This raises a fundamental question: on what basis should I build an appeal to the ICC?

If I rely on the eternal and the spiritual—arguing that wars could have been prevented, lives saved, and that there can be no true victory in such destruction—the result will almost certainly be rejection. If, however, I rely on material facts—the siege of my home, the theft of property, and related abuses—I prevail: I receive compensation, people rally around me, and life itself ultimately presents the bill to traitors and cowards. The ICC Prosecutor will then be compelled to analyze the actions and decisions of the current authorities, and since Armenia falls under the Court’s jurisdiction, an investigation in the Republic could, for the first time, be initiated.

What should I do?

P.S. When we learned that, in the event of a favorable outcome, Arbak Shaumyanovich intends to use the awarded funds to establish a global network of Brain Centers, we asked him how quickly, in his view, a decision might be reached by a European prosecutor or court. Smiling, he replied: “I believe this issue will be resolved more quickly in Armenia itself, with the assistance of new, strong, and competent leadership. Beyond that, any European proceedings would largely serve as a public demonstration, so that the ‘old’ presidents, along with the money they have hidden in the West, become more ‘well-known.’”