Since the birth of the word genocide by Raphael Lemkin, as per the United Nations Charter, and the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples thereon, there are still a lot of struggles remaining in order to finally reach the Rights of Humanity.
And this is obvious in the manner in which we confront the victimizers, due to international law, since it’s upon them to accept that their crime against Humanity was an actual genocide.
And now we can see what has occurred one hundred years after the Armenian genocide.
An eon has passed through, and at this stage we should be wondering what will the next be like, if we continue on the same tactics.
And if we do so, then we will understand that there’s a need to obtain a strategy which will not focus on the perpetrators point of view, or a modification of it.
Because this approach is one-sided and does not have many prospects, if the State who is the actual perpetrator has established its whole existence upon the genocides, because it simply constitutes a State of genocide.
Therefore the acceptance of its crimes, would consequently imply the rejection of its actual entity.
We must therefore from now onwards think about, what the hierarchy would be in the future.
In this context, the most important factor is not the acceptance of that State, but the Trial of Humanity which is condemning that State of genocides.
In other words, if Humanity is convinced that the actual State is the perpetrator, then it needs to make a decision, which is independent of guilt.
Because there is no such State of genocides which holds guilts, as those would erase its whole existence.
This practically means that we must fight in order to obtain the recognition from other nations, and to then pass on those results to the United Nations, without having to deal with the propaganda of the perpetrator State, as we are pro Humanity and we utilize its strategy.