– You got elected as ombudsman and everyone distrusted you because they thought that you are on Robert Kocharyan’s side. You responded to that by making a speech from the National Assembly podium, saying that the MPs thinking that you were going to go along with whatever Kocharyan said could simply not vote. That is exactly what happened during the first elections and you didn’t win. How are you going to gain the MPs trust and not be considered Kocharyan’s “servitor”?
– I don’t agree with the fact that the MPs don’t trust me; otherwise I wouldn’t have received 69 votes (69 MPs voted for Armen Harutyunyan during the first elections-L.S.). However, some oppositional party members thought that way. I must say that 69 votes are even enough to get elected as president of the National Assembly. In other words, that number was more than half of the total number. It was necessary to get three-fifths of the votes to get elected ombudsman. That was done on purpose so that all the political parties would be forced to make a decision as a whole. It’s kind of hard to believe that the first election would end just like that. If I were to receive 30-40 votes, then I would agree with the fact that I am not that trusted, but 69 is a high number. It would be pretty amazing to get 72 votes right off the bat. I consider the first results normal from this perspective. As for gaining the MP’s trust, I am just doing my job and fulfilling my duties. I am not going to try to prove that I can do the job to the MPs that trust me and the ones that don’t. I will simply do what I have to do and one of my jobs is to take care of the issue concerning the Buzand Street. From what I understand, the Constitution doesn’t really solve this and that’s why I sent the same appeal/letter to the Constitutional Court, just like the “Justice” alliance. I didn’t do that to gain the trust of “Justice” alliance members, but rather because I saw that I had the right to do that. I am going to abide by my responsibilities and my rights instead of trying to prove something to people.
– If you consider the results of the first election normal, then why did you leave the NA auditorium, knowing beforehand that you aren’t going to be elected?
– I didn’t leave. The MPs simply told me that they were going to call all the candidates in one at a time. Ruben Torosyan was waiting with me outside the auditorium. That is why I left and waited until they called me. They didn’t call me, so I left. That’s the only reason, not because I knew about the results. True, I was in the auditorium in the beginning, but then I found out that I wasn’t supposed to be there. I wasn’t going to leave the building now was I?
– First ombudsman of Armenia Larisa Alaverdyan doesn’t believe that you will follow up on the issues concerning the residents of Buzand Street after getting acquainted with all the violations. She said that following up doesn’t mean solving the issue. It turns out that she was right because you have changed the wording of her appeal and presented that to the Constitutional Court of Armenia.
– I don’t know why she doesn’t believe in me. I think that we have to deal with the constitutional laws. If the laws passed by the government contradict the laws stated in the Constitution, then those laws should also be put up for debate. This is the only thing that is different in my appeal. It would be pretty strange to have an appeal that doesn’t mention anything about the laws.
– You said that you would present the issue to the Constitutional Court after research and that you would keep your word. What were some of the violations?
– This is not about violations, but rather solving the issue based on constitutional laws.
– What cases have you noticed where human rights are violated?
– We are currently discussing the constitutionality of the actions taken and the decisions made. We are not talking about human rights at the moment. You are asking a different kind of question, which is legally on a different course.
– So, this problem has nothing to do with your profession? Do you mean to say that no human rights have been violated?
– No, the appeals have to do with constitutionality. If the laws do not correspond to the constitution, then we are dealing with human rights violation and that law should not be applied.
– Some people are of the opinion that you are trying to help the authorities legalize what has been done by letting the National Assembly get involved.
– This is not about getting the National Assembly involved. What’s wrong with discussing this or that law along with government resolutions? It’s quite possible that the National Assembly doesn’t have to be the one to go to the Constitutional Court and present itself as the defendant. As for the people of that opinion, then excuse me when I say that they were the same people who were fighting to get the alliance’s appeal accepted by the Constitutional Court and now when the ombudsman sends the appeal, it is not considered normal. You can always find something negative. When the “Justice” alliance appealed to the Constitutional Court, everyone was okay with it and felt like they had to fight to make the CC pass it; they were complaining and wanted to know just how the MPs took back their signatures and the appeal didn’t get accepted by the Constitutional Court. What happened? The ombudsman simply changed a couple of things and sent it to the CC? Why do they think that there is something fishy going on? This kind of mentality is not only worse than human rights violation, but says a lot about our negative attitude towards everything. I have to make sure I stay away from such people with negative attitudes. I did what I did. If the people still complain based on who sent the appeal to the CC, then I consider those people as extremely subjective.
– Don’t you think that the only decision that the CC will make will be to make the National Assembly correspond the laws to the Constitution?
– If we were to only discuss the government resolutions and leave the laws aside, they were going to say the same thing. It would be wrong to ask for more. The first ombudsman, as well as the alliance sent the same appeal. Right now the major issue remains to be constitutionality.
– As a lawyer, do you think that the residents will be compensated?
– I don’t know. You recalled my words when I said that I will study the case and decide to present it to the Constitutional Court or not. What else was I supposed to say? Would you believe a lawyer who said that he would do this or that without even knowing the laws? I can say whether a person can be compensated after getting acquainted with the issue at hand. Even if the Armenian authorities say that it is impossible, the case will go to Strasburg and will be confirmed. It’s pretty difficult. I think that the case should be sent to serious courts to get solved.
– You said that you would think about presenting the first ombudsman’s report to the National Assembly after getting acquainted with it. In response to that L. Alaverdyan said: “What is there to get acquainted with it? I think that he will do that with the people. After all, he can’t deprive the people of that right.” Have you gotten acquainted with the report and what are you going to do with it?”
– I am in favor of having the National Assembly let the first ombudsman make her speech because, according to the law, if she doesn’t then I have to. To tell you the truth, I am planning on presenting the statistics given by the staff based on which the first ombudsman has written her report. But I can’t present her conclusions because there are some things that I agree with and some that I don’t. I will present my future plans to the National Assembly. Isn’t this normal? What else can I do? This is my opinion. I am going to say the same to the NA. I am going to tell the MPs that it wouldn’t be bad to have the first ombudsman have a final word. That’s the least I can do.
– Besides your wish to have her say her final word, if you were the first ombudsman, who should have given your report?
– There are some reasons why I can’t take that report and speak on my behalf. After all, don’t I have a right to disagree with some points? It would be ideal to agree with everything that your predecessor says. A parent doesn’t even agree with everything that his child agrees on. That’s why I think that it would be right to have the first ombudsman make her speech. It would be wrong to have her present her report in its entirety. I suggest presenting the statistics and leave the conclusion up to her. As to whether or not the NA will give her that opportunity, that is a different story. The report consists of two parts-statistics and conclusion. I am going to present the statistics. The rest is up to the NA.
– Do you think that it is right to even present the statistics of someone else’s report?
– But that is not somebody else’s. It belongs to the ombudsman. Now I am the ombudsman and I have to present the report.
– But you said yourself that that is not your report and there are some points with which you don’t agree.
– If there was a law on not reading the report of the former ombudsman, then I wouldn’t. But there is no such law and the current ombudsman must take on the responsibility. You can’t ask the former to do that. Today’s authorities can’t fully agree with the predecessors.
– L. Alaverdyan has told the press many times that she has had to overcome many obstacles while she was ombudsman. How do you plan on overcoming any obstacles and do you think that the issues can be solved?
– I can’t say anything now. I don’t know what will happen. If questions arise, then I will give the appropriate answers. I didn’t see any kind of solution to the Buzand street issue. As to what will happen later, I refrain from making predictions.