Armenian Genocide Resource Center

Monday, 23 December 2013

Geoffrey Robertson QC "Hypothetical or Hypocritical"? you decide.

Watch Academics Roast Geoffrey Robertson QC.

Dear Mr Aya,

After having read what Mr Geoffrey "Hypothetical" (ought to be Hypocritical) Robertson QC purportedly wrote to you, in relation to your book launch "Twisted Law Vs Documented History", I felt the need to write to you.  I felt the need most specifically as a result of Mr Robertson's statement (or that statement which was attributed to Mr Robertson)  and I quote, "Although the pamphlet focuses on my work, I have not been asked to speak and I am offered no “right of reply”. So, I shall not be in attendance: last-minuteness of the invitation betrays its lack of sincerity."

That is the most hypocritical and despicable statement I have ever read from any member of the Bar in fact any Bar.  Mr Robertson offer's no "Right of Reply" for the now deceased Ottoman Leadership in publishing his supposed Legal Opinion, I say supposed because as far as I can garner to date it is vastly more political than Legal in nature.  I do not state that fact lightly as I am currently undertaking a review of his supposed Legal Opinion, which brings disgrace and disrepute onto the British and Australian Legal systems and most specifically the office of Queens Counsel and "Recorder."

It is my personal view that a complaint to the appropriate Bar Association and or Regulatory body, should be lodged in the United Kingdom in relation to his political opinion, the manner, text and context of which has been widely published, used and relied upon by politicians around the globe.  As I say, as far as I am concerned he has brought disrepute onto the Legal Profession, the Judiciary of the United Kingdom and the Office of Queens Counsel.  The basis of the complaint should be in relation to his political opinion and the fact that he uses his office as Queens Counsel and "Recorder" to add weight to what is a pure and utter Political Opinion and not a formal Legal one, in the standard, considered, measured traditional sense.

I attach for you a very raw first draft of my review of his political opinion which once complete I intend on publishing. You will note it has approximately 10 pages of information which has addressed effectively the first two pages only of Mr Robertson's political opinion.

Ataman Atlas
Barrister & Solicitor
Melbourne Australia.

Considering the recent Judgement handed down by the European Court of Human Rights relating to the alleged Armenian Genocide in the case of CASE OF PERİNÇEK v. SWITZERLAND Mr Robertson's supposed Legal Opinion looks even more erroneous and an attempt to push a political agenda. 

ECrtHR Perincek v Switzerland Case transcripts in French  

Brief Case Summary of Perincek v Switzerland 

Mr Robertson QC has brought the Legal Profession and Judiciary of England and Wales into disrepute and disgrace with his political opinion, masked as a formal Legal Opinion.  He ought to be stripped of his Queens Counsel title.

Below is a 1st and incomplete draft of a Review and Analysis of  Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC's 2009 opinion. There will be spelling and grammatical mistakes please notify this site for any corrections.


By Ataman Atlas
Barrister & Solicitor
12 December 2013

1.               For nearly a Century much has been written, said, and forged about the alleged Armenian Genocide.  I say "Alleged" because that is exactly what it is, an allegation. There has never been, to my knowledge, any Ottoman Government or modern day Turkish Government, or any individual, convicted for the Offence of Genocide or any other charge akin to Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity, in a properly instructed and competent Tribunal of Fact and Law, where all the evidence has been tested.

2.               Mr Robertson QC has added his voice to the chorus of those claiming that the former Ottoman Empire committed a "Genocide" upon its Armenian Citizens.  From the outset I make the disclaimer that I am of Turkish heritage and acknowledge that fact may well be deemed by some people, as me being biased.   Having said that, I would like to point out that I take my oath which I took prior to being admitted as a Legal Practitioner to the Supreme Court of NSW with the utmost seriousness.  That Oath states,

3.               "I,  [NAME]            do swear [or solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that if I am enrolled as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of New South Wales I will truly and honestly conduct myself in the practice of a lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and I shall faithfully serve as such in the administration of the laws and the usages of that State according to the best of my knowledge, skill and ability."

4.               In summation there must necessarily be honesty in your conduct as a Legal Practitioner and more importantly a subservience to the Rule of Law.  The Rule of Law principle is a foundational and paramount element of any fair and just society.   There are similar oaths of office in every Commonwealth Jurisdiction throughout the Common Law world.  It is the taking of this oath or affirmation, and the signing of the roll that marks the culmination from simply holding a law degree to becoming a lawyer.  So the taking of the oath means more or ought necessarily to mean more to the Legal Practitioner than just obtaining instructions from a client and completing the clients task or goal. The oath quite rightly and necessarily requires integrity and subservience to the law from each attorney.

5.               There are those who fall short of living up to their respective oaths.  What happens when that occurs? Well here is an example which I borrow from Mr Stephen Warne's (Barrister) blog and I quote

6.               "Here's a decision from the NSW Court of Appeal, apparently exercising original jurisdiction, in which a former partner of Marsdens in Campbellfield was struck off the roll by consent for receiving secret commissions of $180,000 amongst other things, including deceiving the investigation into that conduct: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Alcorn [2007] NSWCA 288. The analysis of whether the solicitor was a fit and proper person was as follows:

7.               ’64 The finding that a practitioner has been guilty of professional misconduct does not automatically lead to a finding that the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners (Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279). Rather an order for the removal of the legal practitioner’s name from the roll is the final consideration where a finding of professional misconduct has been made (NSW Bar Association v Smith (NSWCA unreported 9 May 1991 at [37]).

8.               65 Some guidance on this question is provided in Ziems as follows:

9.               “The conviction is not irrelevant: it is admissible prima facie evidence bearing on the ultimate issue, and may be regarded as carrying a degree of disgrace itself. But, in the first place, its weight may be seriously affected by circumstances attending it, and it must be permissible to look at the conduct of the trial. And, in the second place, it is on what the man did that the case must ultimately be decided. And we are bound to ascertain, so far as we can on the material available, the real facts of the case.” (Fullagar J at 288) and:

10.            “The vital question, as I have already said, and as these considerations show, is whether the conduct of the person concerned, whether it constitutes an offence against the law or not, has been such as to show that he is unfit to remain a member of the bar.” (Taylor J at 303)

11.            66 In this case not only has the opponent been convicted of criminal offences, but the offences are of such a disgraceful kind and so concern his capacity to act as a legal practitioner, that he is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. In addition it is not only the conduct the subject of the criminal convictions which demonstrates the necessity for removal from the roll, but the other examples of dishonesty, lack of candour and failures of professional duties to which has been made.

12.            67 In determining the question of fitness to remain on the Roll, as with the question of “good fame and character”, the focus of the inquiry is upon fitness as at the time of the application (Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v P [2003] NSWCA 320 at [17]). In making such a determination the important factor is the nature and extent of the past conduct and demonstrated dishonesty.

13.            68 In this case the systematic course of dishonest conduct, albeit that it occurred in 2002 and over a relatively short period, is such that it is incompatible with the degree of honesty and integrity required for legal practice (NSW Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284; (2001) 52 NSWLR 279, NSW Bar Association v Somosi [2001] NSWCA 285; (2001) 48 ATR 562.) This is particularly so when the course of conduct involved deliberate deception and dishonesty, including attempts to deceive investigating authorities.

14.            69 A legal practitioner is required to be faithful to the oath of office, the courts, fellow practitioners and clients and as such, considerable trust is placed in him or her. The conduct of the opponent has demonstrated aspects of his character that are “fundamentally inimical to fitness to practice as a legal practitioner” (Barwick v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] NSWCA 32 at [119]). In my opinion these matters establish that he is not a fit and proper person to discharge the responsibilities of practising as a legal practitioner.

15.            70 The final consideration arises from the nature of these proceedings. Such proceedings are not punitive in nature and it is the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards within the legal profession which are the ultimate considerations.

16.            71 In considering an order for the removal of a legal practitioner’s name from the Roll, it is clear that the deterrent aspect of such an order both in terms of the individual practitioner and others who may be tempted to engage in like conduct, must be considered. This deterrent aspect is consistent with both the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards within the legal profession.

17.            72 For those reasons I am of the opinion that a declaration should be made that the opponent is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of NSW. I am also of the opinion that an order should be made that the name of the opponent be removed from the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of NSW. [1]  

18.            As one can glean from the above case transcripts and reasoning, which I reiterate and highlight,

19.            " 69 A legal practitioner is required to be faithful to the oath of office, the courts, fellow practitioners and clients and as such, considerable trust is placed in him or her. The conduct of the opponent has demonstrated aspects of his character that are “fundamentally inimical to fitness to practice as a legal practitioner

20.            70 The final consideration arises from the nature of these proceedings. Such proceedings are not punitive in nature and it is the protection of the public and the maintenance of proper standards within the legal profession which are the ultimate considerations. (Barwick v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2004] NSWCA 32 at [119])."[2]

21.            Therein lies the importance of a Legal Practitioner in adhering to their Oath of Office, so that Justice can be done and seen to be done[3], in a transparent manner. If there is perceived bias from a Judicial Officer or a member of the Bar, it has been held, that conduct brings into disrepute, and strikes at the heart of our legal system.  To that end, I guard my reputation jealously and place my integrity above all else.

22.            My aim in the following paragraphs is not to end the debate about whether or not there was a "Genocide" perpetrated upon the Armenian citizens of the former Ottoman Empire, for the simple reason that I am not an historian who has intimately studied all the facts, all available source documents, and information.  My aim in this review and analysis of Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC's opinion is to ascertain whether or not the conclusion reached by Mr Robertson would be safe and in accordance with the Internationally accepted Law and offence of Genocide.

23.            In his opinion at paragraphs 45 and 93 Mr Robertson concludes,

24.            "45 In short, I consider that the evidence is compelling that the Ottoman State is responsible, on the legal principles set out at paragraph 27 above, for what would now be described as genocide. Those running that state in 1915 must have known what was apparent to unbiased foreign observers, and their racist intention may be inferred not just from their
reported statements but from their knowledge of racial and religious pogroms in 1894-6
and 1909; their deliberate fanning of racial superiority theories in the Turkification programme; the deportation orders and their foresight of the consequences; their failure to protect the deportees or to punish their attackers, some of whom were state agents. They instigated, or at very least acquiesced in, the killing of a significant part of the Armenian race – probably about half of those who were alive in Eastern Turkey at the beginning of 1915.

25.            93 In my opinion, the law set out at paragraphs 12-27, when applied to the facts stated at paragraphs 30- 44, produces the inevitable conclusion that the treatment of the Armenians in 1915 answers to the description of genocide. The historians relied upon by the FCO in support of its refusal to accept this conclusion do not, on analysis, sustain the FCO position or affect my opinion as summarised in paragraph 45."[4]

26.            Mr Robertson's conclusion is clear, he has deemed that the Ottoman Government of the period is guilty of the Offence of Genocide and that there can be no other alternate inference beyond reasonable doubt.  Now there is an oft used idiom within the Common Law world which states "Dead men cannot sue!" The reason being an action for defamation (in general terms throughout the common law world, we must not forget there are differences between jurisdictions) is a personal action. Dead people cannot sue for defamation; neither can an action begun by a plaintiff be continued by his children or family if he dies before the case comes to court. The action dies with him.  So in this regard, I echo Thomas Conway, Jr. when he wrote, "it’s a shame sometimes that dead men can’t sue.”

27.            You see for if "Dead men" were indeed able to sue then I dare say Mr Robertson QC would find himself before the Courts in order to answer an action for Defamation against the Ottoman leadership of the day.  My previous statement will become self evident as the reader reads through the following paragraphs.

28.            Mr Robertson's opinion which is published on the internet on various sites opens up with a photograph (which is reproduced and marked with the words Annexure 1 at the end of this analysis) on the covering page depicting what is stated as  "Photographs Front cover – Kharpert, Historic Armenia, Ottoman Empire, 1915 Armenians being marched to prison in nearby Mezireh under the guard of armed Turkish soldiers. Project SAVE Armenian Photograph Archives, Watertown, Massachusetts, courtesy of an anonymous photo donor"[5]

29.            From the outset of Mr Robertson's opinion we have a significant issue.  That is the reproduction of a photograph from an anonymous donor.  There is no information as to who took the photograph, what date it was taken, nor the location it was taken at.  Mr Robertson being a Recorder and Queens Counsel ought to know the Rules of Evidence would not allow such a photograph being admitted into evidence, without its accuracy being tested under cross examination.  I am cognisant of the fact of the words describing the photograph on page 1 of Mr Robertson's opinion reproduced above.  However, was Mr Robertson aware that same picture has been used in various articles published on the internet stating that it depicts the "Genocide of the Pontian Greeks"[6]? If he was, why then was the picture used in his formal legal opinion. If he wasn't aware, what inquiries did he conduct in order to gauge the photograph's authenticity?  What was the purpose of placing an emotive picture on the covering page of his legal opinion?

30.            Now readers of this analysis may well think that I am being pedantic, however the questions asked are fundamental questions for the administration of the Law, which would ordinarily be asked by opposing Counsel.  The Common Law system may not be perfect but I believe it to be the best legal system in the world, having experienced working within the European Civil system of Law.  The Common Law system has rules of evidence which are paramount to the fair and just administration of our legal system.  It has been stated in Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 by Lord Sankey,
"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."

31.            Yet again Mr Robertson being a Recorder and Queens Counsel ought to know that principle and the requirements of that principle even at International Law.

32.            Now moving on from the covering page onto Mr Robertson's opening sentence in his opinion whereby he states, "There is no doubt that in 1915, the Ottoman government ordered the deportation of up to two million Armenians from Anatolia and other provinces: they were marched towards Syria and hundreds of thousands died en route from disease, starvation and armed attack."[7]

33.            Contrary to that statement there is significant doubt in relation to the numbers of Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire who were "Relocated" not "Deported." Notwithstanding Mr Robertson's use of the words, "up to two million." Now I do not intend on focusing on the numbers of Armenian citizens which were relocated and suffered as a result, because at the end of the day, even if one person is killed, murdered or dies of starvation and or disease which could well have been prevented, it is still tragic.  The point here in the analysis of Mr Robertson's legal opinion is that he has formed a firm view that those figures cannot be disputed.  Yet historical demographers like Professor Justin McCarthy and many others using Armenian sources have concluded vastly different figures.  These estimates by the likes of Professor McCarthy and others have not been negated by any firm or concrete evidence or source documents that I am aware of.  Most importantly however in Mr Robertson's opening sentence and one which has a recurring theme throughout his opinion is the use of the word "Deportation."
34.            Most readers would be well aware of Mr Robertson's qualifications and titles, in fact they are reproduced in his opinion under the section "Note on the Author" without any doubt Mr Robertson is a learned man.  Having established that fact, why then is it that Mr Robertson continually uses the term "Deported" or "Deportation" throughout his opinion?  Being a formal Legal Opinion, commissioned and paid for by The Armenian Centre[8] the meaning of words are yet again paramount in the fair and just administration of Justice.

35.            Deportation has a very specific meaning at Law, Black's Law Dictionary states Deportation as the following:-

"Banishment to a foreign country, attended with confiscation of property and deprivation of civil rights. A punishment derived from the deportatio (q.v.) of the Roman law, and still in use in France. In Roman law. A perpetual banishment, depriving the banished of his rights as a citizen ; it differed from relegation (q. v.) and exile, (q. v.) 1 Brown, Civil & Adm. Law,125, note; Inst 1, 12, 1, and 2; Dig. 48, 22,-14, 1.In American law. The removal or sending back of an alien to the country from which he came, as a measure of national police and without any implication of punishment or penalty.”Transportation,” “extradition,” and “deportation,” although each has the effect of removing a person from a country, are different things and for different purposes. Transportation is by way of punishment of one convicted of an offense against the laws of the country; extradition is the surrender to another country of one accused of an offense against its laws, there to be tried and punished if found guilty. Deportation is the removing of an alien out of the country simply because his presence is deemed inconsistent with the public welfare, and without any punishment being imposed or contemplated, either under the laws of the country out of which he is sent or under those of the country to which he is taken. Fong Yue Ting v. U. S.. 149 U. S. 698, 13Sup. Ct 1016, 37 L. Ed. 905."

36.            From the readily available information and evidence in text and on the internet, it cannot be said that the Ottoman government, "... ordered the deportation..." of its Armenian citizens.  The orders by the Ottoman Government can be incontrovertibly established as a "relocation" from one part of the former Empire to another part within the same Empire, Nation or State.  At no time am I attempting to trivialise or minimise the suffering and death of innocent Armenians. I am applying the law and the rules of evidence as best I can to the best of my abilities as I have been taught and know from experience.  Having said that, the question must be asked, why then does Mr Robertson refer to and characterise the mobilisation and removal of Armenian citizens from certain sections of the former Ottoman Empire (not from the entire Ottoman lands) as a "Deportation"?  Does he not know the difference at Law the meanings of Deportation and Relocation or is there a more nefarious reason in his use and characterisation of the relocation as a "Deportation"?

37.            Moving on from the opening sentence of Mr Robertson's opinion we come to his second sentence, "There were other atrocities committed against Armenians in that year because of their race and their Christian religion, beginning with the rounding up of several hundred intellectuals in Constantinople on 24 April"      

38.            Now what is interesting in that sentence and one which strikes a person of average intelligence immediately, is Mr Robertson's use of the former name of Istanbul i.e. "Constantinople"? Why would Mr Robertson chose to use the former name as opposed to the official name of "Istanbul"? Constantinople was conquered on Tuesday, 29 May 1453. Istanbul has been the official name of the city since the 10th century, and it was most certainly the name of the city during the material times relevant to the Armenian Genocide allegation.  Did Mr Robertson refer to Sierra Leone as "The Colony of Freetown" or as "Mende or Temne Land"? During his time as the first President of the UN War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone.

39.            From that point we move on to Mr Robertson's contention that "several hundred Armenians" were rounded up on the 24 April 1915 because they were Armenian and Christian.  Now let us bear in mind Mr Robertson's opinion is a formal legal opinion which effectively convicts the Ottoman Government of the offence of Genocide at International Law, his credentials add weight and consideration to his formal legal opinion.

40.            There are serious concerns about that statement, firstly it has since been establish yet again incontrovertibly that 235 Armenian citizens[9] were arrested on the 24 April 2015. Not several hundred as Mr Robertson states in his formal legal opinion. Again it may appear as though I am being pedantic, about the numbers arrested, but the administration of Law must be as precise as humanly possible.

41.            More importantly than the error in numbers arrested and far more concerning is Mr Robertson's contention and conclusion that these Armenians were arrested as a result of their race and religion.  That contention is entirely false and can be established by incontrovertible fact to be false.  The Armenians arrested on that day were arrested in relation to a variety of charges ranging from what would today be called sedition and acts of terrorism or armed rebellion.  Not because they were Armenian or because of their Christian faith.  The study of source documents has established this fact for those interested in this study and in order to check the facts and authenticity of the documents relied on this study can be found on the internet at this URL site

42.            Some may argue that these charges were fictitious and used as a cover for the Ottoman leadership's genocidal intent.  The question then arises, why then did the Ottomans conduct trials for these individuals?  Why were certain numbers released and allowed to return to Istanbul?  Why not just summarily execute them instead of going through a prolonged period of time and wastage of resources in order to conduct a "Sham" trial only to release them?  Why were other Armenians and Christians allowed to continue to hold high office and positions of authority and power within the Ottoman Empire? For example;-

43.            "Particularly in the 19th century, twenty-nine Armenians were granted the highest military rank of Pasha (General).  There were twenty-two Armenian ministers in Ottoman Administration, including the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Finance, Treasury, Trade and Post, with other Armenians holding high positions at the departments in charge of agriculture, economic development, and the census. There also were thirty-three Armenian representatives appointed and elected to the Ottoman Parliament, seven ambassadors, eleven consuls-general and consuls, eleven university professors, and forty-one other officials of high rank.  In the beginning of the twentieth century, during the Balkan Wars, Mr. Gabriel Noradukyan, an Ottoman Armenian, served as the Foreign Minister of the Ottoman Empire.  Agop Kazakyan served as the Minister of Finance and Sakız Ohannes Paşa as the Minister of Treasury.  İlyas Çayan Efendi was the President of the Council of State.  Osgan Mardikyan was the Minister of Communication. Ohannes Ferit Efendi (Van), Ohannes Asasyan (Elazığ), L. Aycıyan ve Ant Billoryan (Erzurum) served as the Deputy Governors in the eastern provinces of Turkey."[10]

44.            How is it then that the Ottoman leadership with genocidal intent against Armenians and Christians, arrest 235 Armenian Christians and allows other Armenian Christians to continue with their positions of high authority and office? Especially Generals within the Ottoman Military apparatus whom command thousands of Ottoman troops? These facts are yet again incontrovertible and difficult to reconcile with Mr Robertson's formal legal opinion.

45.            Mr Robertson also compares the alleged Armenian genocide with the "Holocaust" the question that immediately comes to mind is would Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party have allowed people from the Jewish faith to hold such senior positions within the Nazi State apparatus especially Generals in the Nazi Military?  That question may well appear to be rhetorical in nature but it is a serious and genuine question that needs to be asked when comparing the two tragedies, in order to establish at law Genocidal intent.  It is yet again incontrovertible fact that many Armenian Christians did in fact hold positions of high authority and office before during and even after the material times.  An example of an Armenian Christian holding high office after the material times and in fact in the very early years of the Republic of Turkey is Mr Hagop Martayan.

46.            "It is stated Mr Hagop Martayan was a Philologist, and an expert in the science of encyclopaedia, was born in Istanbul in 1895. A graduate of the American Robert College, he dedicated his entire life to the study of languages, becoming an expert in the Turkish language.  Mr Martayan also served as a reserve military officer in the Ottoman Army during World War I.  Then later lived in Europe for a period of time, and I quote, " In 1932, Ataturk was impassioned on his project about the Turkish language. When he learned about Hagop Martayan, who was at that time in Bulgaria, he invited him to Turkey, and appointed him to the First Turkish Language Convention. Around that time, a statute making surnames mandatory was at the legislature. Ataturk was very impressed by the expertise of Hagop Martayan, and suggested that he take the last name Dilaçar, meaning "tongue opener", which Martayan graciously accepted.  After the Turkish Language Convention, Mr. Dilaçar became the Head Expert in the Turkish Language Association. Later, he taught languages at the universities and high schools.

47.            In 1936, he taught for fifteen years the History of Linguistics. and General Linguistics at the School of Language, History and Geography (Dil, Tarih, Coðrafya Fakültesi) at the University of Ankara. He was the advisor to the Turkish Encyclopedia, and later became its chief editor. Mr. Dilaçar passed away on September 12, 1979 in Istanbul."[11]  

48.            Yet again this is another example of an incontrovertible fact which does not reconcile with Mr Robertson's opinion. It may well be said that Mr Martayan was possibly aware of the alleged "Armenian Christian" genocide but decided to turn a blind eye. However, the question must be asked, if that were the case, was he not afraid for his own personal safety and security?  If not his own, then what of his families safety and security? Knowing the purported hatred of Armenians and Christians by the Turks, both in the Ottoman leadership and later under the leadership of Ataturk in the newly created State of the Republic of Turkey.

49.            Mr Martayan's story is but one example there are others which I will not cover.  These facts may well have been missed by Mr Robertson during the process of him forming and drafting his opinion.  However, we do not know what inquiries if any were made by Mr Robertson in order to ascertain all the facts which he relied upon to form his opinion, that the Ottoman leadership's intention was to persecute Armenians based solely on their race and faith.  Having said that Mr Robertson being an educated man, and if he were to apply to himself, the oath of office as a Legal Practitioner, and in keeping with the concept of the Rule of Law, he should well ought to have made the most basic of inquiries on the internet in order to ascertain these facts.

These facts are not difficult to ascertain nor difficult to verify their authenticity, nor are they in historical dispute.  The irony of Mr Martayan's story would have been difficult to miss, that is an Armenian Christian, teaching Muslim Turks Turkish.  Therefore that entire statement or Mr Robertson's second sentence which he asserts in his opinion is entirely incorrect on a factual basis.

[2] ibid.
[3] R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233)
[4] Was there an Armenian Genocide? Geoffrey Robertson QC's Opinion 9 October 2009
[5] ibid. page 1.
[6] "Twisted Law versus Documented History Geoffrey Robertson's opinion on genocide against proven facts", Sukru Server AYA, Athol Books Belfast, 2013, page 4
[7] op. cit. Robertson's Opinion page3
[8] ibid. page 1.