The RA National Assembly vice speaker Tigran Torosyan says that he hopes that the people that made violations during the referendum will be punished. We asked him whether he would help the public prosecutor’s office and give them some facts of violations to investigate and he answered: “Of course if there is anything I can help with, I will. But as I haven’t participated in these processes I don’t have any documents and facts to present to the prosecutor’s office”. We asked him whether their representatives in electoral commissions hadn’t registered any facts and he answered: “I think our representatives have already submitted what they have registered”.
Interview with the RA National Assembly vice speaker Tigran Torosyan
– Recently representatives of “Rule of law” blame republicans in boycotting the activities of the NA by saying that by doing this they want to punish Arthur Baghdasaryan for his announcement stating that there were a lot of violations during the referendum process. Do republicans boycott the activities of the NA purposely or there is another reason?
– There is no sense to say these kinds of things. Some people just want to “win some points”. It is clear what is happening: we could just take the list of the registered NA members and see that only republicans were missing and here we could criticize republicans. It is clear that this doesn’t concern only the “Republican” party. I think it is not good of us to organize a hearing in the NA and not provide the adequate number of votes, because we must work there. This is our responsibility, because NA members are elected by people. And it doesn’t depend on which powers are trying to do that. It is pity but it is already clear that people don’t attend the NA meetings in case it is on the same day as the earthquake day: I think we must organize more meetings in the NA in order to do what we haven’t done and what we have missed out on. So, nobody can blame anyone in this situation, because it is widespread and concerns everyone. Even more, in case we don’t try to find out what the problem is and instead of trying to solve it we make chaos, we will never be able to solve the problem and new problems will come up.
– Once, Arthur Baghdasaryan said that this tendency would increase the closer we get to the parliamentary elections in 2007. How long will this go on?
– To tell you frankly I don’t want to make any predictions, but one thing is clear: from the political point of view the society develops faster than some political powers or their representatives. I am sure that people will follow the developments in the parliament and it will be clear to them who works there and who doesn’t, so they will be able to make a conscious choice during the next elections.
– Recently NA member and representative of “Rule of law” political party Hovhannes Margaryan announced that if this goes on long there will be a need in forming a new government and NA majority power. He also threatened by saying that if the other powers started to boycott like the “Republican party” the RA government would fall into a bad situation, because the legal drafts presented by the government would not be brought up in the NA. What can you say about this?
– First of all please note that the NA doesn’t work only to discuss the legal drafts of the government. Besides that, the government doesn’t present the legal drafts that are worked out by “Republican” party. The government advocates the “Republican” party as much as “Rule of law” and “ARF”. And it will be just amazing to reconsider the responsibilities and share responsibilities again. I think they shouldn’t make the situation more difficult by asking absurd questions, but they should try to understand what is really going on and make conclusions. It is clear that the reason that these days the NA failed to organize meetings is not only the absence of republicans, but also the absence of other NA members. This must be clear to everyone who can make simple calculations.
– Don’t you think that “Republican” party must be present there at least because of the fact that they are a part of the coalition so as not to let the NA fall into such a bad situation?
– Of course all powers are responsible for this situation, but it is just amazing to blame only republicans in this situation and it is not good of them.
– After the referendum Arthur Baghdasaryan announced that it was clear that there had been violations and ballot stuffing and that he was going to send the registered facts to the public prosecutor’s office. Don’t you have these kinds of facts? Don’t you think with this action Arthur Baghdasaryan doesn’t want to take on his responsibilities because “Rule of law” had been widely represented in electoral commissions as a coalition member during the referendum?
– I don’t think that anyone can duck out only by asking questions. Besides that far after the referendum, when everyone was afraid to say something and speak about their points of view, when the EU and the international observers announced that there had been violations, I said that I agreed with them but these violations couldn’t have influence on the results and outcome of the referendum. Then the coalition made an announcement stating that there had been violations and that they had called on the authorized bodies to find and punish the violators. So Mr. Baghdasaryan didn’t make any invention. His announcement differed from our announcements only with one thing: he spoke about concrete violations, about ballet stuffing. Of course he is going to send all those facts to the general prosecutor, because the general prosecutor has asked everyone, as well as Arthur Baghdasaryan, to send them all the registered facts and cases of violations.
– Will republicans send them any facts of violations?
– A lot of republicans were involved in electoral commissions, and this work will be carried out together with those commissions. There is no need to collect facts.
– After the elections in 2003 you announced that all violators had to be punished but no one was punished. Don’t you think that people will not believe in the same announcement as in 2003 and it will be failed?
– Of course if this kind of thing has happened people will worry this time. This is clear. But if something happens for several times this doesn’t mean yet that the same thing will always happen. Unfortunately, I can’t say now what the public prosecutor’s office will do and whether their work will satisfy people and political powers, but this is the legal way of doing this. All other ways are undermined.
– Oppositionists say that the fact that the coalition representatives agree that there have been serious violations means that the violations and the fraud have influenced on the outcome of the referendum. Oppositionists suggest the coalition to appeal to the Constitutional Court and prove that these violations couldn’t influence the outcome. Don’t they agree with this offer?
– Unfortunately our colleagues made a step about which they didn’t think long and which is undermined. They didn’t have to make this kind of announcement and then call on people to find out what really happened. If they were interested in these developments they could make their representatives work in commissions, take part in this process and make statements. The Constitutional Court is the only place where they can apply to protect their interests, but now they don’t have any facts to do this.
– They don’t have them, but you do. And you agree with them that there were violations. What about this?
– I already said what the basement is.
– Does this mean that you will not apply to the Constitutional Court?
– People that don’t agree with the results should do that. I am sure that despite the capacity of violations the outcome would be the same.
– The opposition is going to collect signatures and present the number of people that haven’t participated in the referendum. Is this true?
– Of course not. All facts must be based on the Constitution and laws. Instead of working in electoral commissions they are going to collect signatures. If they wanted to collect signatures they could have taken part in this process and collected these facts in the commissions, but not now. By the way, according to the CEC information only 884 polling station commissions (PEC) out of the 1992 PECs worked with their full number of members (9). And there were only 8 members in 527 PECs. This means that at least one member out of these eight members was an oppositionist. They signed on statements. How can they explain this? If their representatives had problems they could refuse signing these statements and then bring these facts and argue about the outcome on the basis of these facts. To tell you frankly, it seems to me that they don’t even want to argue.